Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Sandown Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

POST OFFICE (AMERICAN MAIL CONTRACT).

Copy ordered, "of the Contract, dated the 27th day of June, 1928, between the Postmaster-General and Cunard Steam Ship Company, Limited, for the conveyance of Mails to and from the United States of America, together with a Copy of the Treasury Minute thereon, dated the 2nd day of July, 1928."

Copy ordered, "of the Contract, dated the 27th day of June, 1928, between the Postmaster-General and the Oceanic Steams Navigation Company, Limited, for the conveyance of Mails to and from the United States of America, together with a Copy of the Treasury Minute thereon, dated the 2nd day of July, 1928."—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]

Mr. MACLEAN: Can we get a copy of these contracts?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not until the Order is made.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of
persons that have received treatment for war wounds in an institution or as outpatients, respectively, who have been refused treatment allowances because they had never applied for a pension; and if he will take such action as may be necessary to ensure that men who have saved to the country the expense of paying pensions shall, when undergoing treatment in respect of wounds incurred during the Great War, be paid treatment allowances of the same amount as men who have been granted pensions?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have no record of the number of cases of the class referred to which do not fall to be dealt with under the Pension Warrants. At the same time, I am empowered, under special sanction, to grant allowances for the support of the men's families during the period of treatment.

Dr. SHIELS: Is it not the case that alterations have been made in the Warrants frequently in a direction that is disadvantageous to the ex-service men, and can he see his way to grant an alteration in Article 6 of the Warrant to enable this to be done?

Major TRYON: No. This is not an alteration in the Warrant to the disadvantage of the men, but is an additional benefit.

Dr. SHIELS: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. William R. Campbell, late private No. 6,312 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, of 32, Beach Lane, Musselburgh, at present an in-patient at Edenhall Ministry of Pensions hospital undergoing operative treatment for the removal of shrapnel in his left shoulder; whether he is aware that this man's medical history sheets contain records of treatment for wounds during the War; what steps are being taken to arrange for the maintenance of his lodgings and the meeting of other liabilities, as the payment of treatment allowances has been refused; and, in view of the circumstances, if he will arrange to have the man boarded for pension under the Dispensing Warrant of 1884, seeing that more than seven years have elapsed since the termination of active service?

Major TRYON: I find that Mr. Campbell was admitted to hospital on the 23rd May, under the special arrangements made for cases of this kind, and on the 20th June he applied for an allowance on behalf of his mother. Inquiries as to her eligibility were immediately instituted, and authority will be issued for the payment of this allowance if any is found to be due to her.

Dr. SHIELS: Is it not the case that, practically as a matter of course, when allowances are claimed for ex-service men who are not pensioners, they are refused, although the Minister says that he has special powers to grant allowances?

Major TRYON: The point in this case is that allowances for parents are only granted where there is dependence. If we find there is dependence the allowance will be granted.

NEED PENSIONS (OLD AGE PENSIONS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Mr. McCarthy, residing at Mathieson Street, Glasgow, had his need pension reduced from 10s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. weekly on receiving an old age pension of 10s., and that 1s. has now been added; that the total income this man now has is 16s. 6d. weekly to maintain him and pay rent; and if, in view of the needs of this man, he will reconsider his case?

Major TRYON: The need pension being based on the circumstances of the applicant, the adjustment of it in this case, following a permanent increase of income, is in accordance with the normal practice and was expressly contemplated by the Contributory Pensions Act of 1925. The pensioner in this case, who is drawing a larger amount in the aggregate than before, is not entitled under the present circumstances to a higher rate of pension under the Royal Warrants.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Minister answer the question as to whether he thinks 16s. 6d. a week is a sufficient need pension to maintain a man?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the liability we have in this matter. We endeavour to make a payment in substitution
of the amount which would have been contributed by the son if he had survived.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the fact that investigations are made into the person's need for pension and that the Minister has the right to grant £1 per week, or more; and does he not consider that in this case there is need for a much larger sum than a total income of 16s. 6d. as a pension?

Major TRYON: An examination is made by the Ministry as to what might reasonably have been expected from the son had he survived.

Mr. BUCHANAN: A grant of 10s. 6d. was made in the first case on income, now it has been reduced to 6s. 6d. May I ask whether the grant is in regard to pension based on income, or on the question of need; and what is the actual amount which the man is receiving?

Major TRYON: The actual amount is in substitution for what the son might have been expected to give.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions in how many cases appeals which have been disallowed for reasons of disabilities not attributable have been referred to his Department for reconsideration during the 12 months ending 30th June, 1928; and in how many cases have the decisions been, reversed by the Ministry?

Major TRYON: The records of the Ministry do not enable the information asked for in the first; part of the question to be given. With regard to the second part of the question, in 11 cases of the type referred to the circumstances were considered to be such as to enable a grant under special sanction to be made.

Mr. MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware than in many cases the decisions are come to in opposition to the highest medical authority and are purely matters of opinion. Will he reconsider the whole system which is causing injustice to thousands of ex-service men all over the country?

Major TRYON: I am not prepared to make any change in the system of tribunals, asked for by ex-service men, which is generally accepted as just.

Mr. MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many branches of the British Legion do not agree with him?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON POLICE MAGISTRATES.

Mr. DAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce his decision as to the appointment of further London police magistrates to the maximum fixed by statute?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): No, Sir; but I hope to be able to in a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEA SALES (BONUS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether his, attention has been drawn to the recent cases in the county courts against tea-bonus firms and to the remarks of the judges in some of the cases; and whether it is now intended to take public action against any of these firms?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that county court proceedings have been taken successfully against certain firms, but so far as the cases that have occurred in the Metropolitan Police District are concerned, I am advised that criminal proceedings for fraud would not be successful.

Mr. MORRISON: Has the Home Secretary any power in regard to cases outside the Metropolitan Police area?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: None whatever. It is a matter for the local police or the watch committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (ANTHRAX).

Dr. SALTER: 11.
asked the Home Secretary the number of cases of anthrax which have occurred in human beings and have been notified to his Department during each of the last five years;
the number of cases in which the disease proved fatal in each of those years; and the number of cases in which the infection was traced to its source or origin?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The numbers in the years 1923 to 1927 were 50, 45, 48, 42 and 35 respectively, of which 8, 4, 10, 4 and 3 were fatal. In all except 7 of the eases the patient was found to have been in contact with materials likely to be infected with anthrax.

Dr. SALTER: May I ask if the officers of the Home Department either destroy or cause to be destroyed, or prevent from being used, the remaining hides from an infected consignment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to have notice of that question. I think, it is dealt with in the next question of the hon. Member.

Dr. SALTER: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether his Department has investigated the serious outbreaks of anthrax at Newcastle, Warrington and Bolton which have occurred this year; if so, what were the results of the inquiry; whether he has considered amending the Regulations dealing with the treatment of hides and skins; whether he proposes to enforce arrangements for the efficient disinfection of foreign imported skins; and whether he intends to issue a Welfare Order in connection with tanning and the leather industry generally?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. Each of the cases—eight altogether—reported this year from the three places mentioned has been investigated. It was found that in every case except one the workman had been in contact with hides imported from China, The question of further precautions has for some time past been under discussion with the employers' and workers' associations, but it is agreed that the only measure likely to be effective would be disinfection. Investigations for this purpose were commenced some time ago by the United Tanners' Federation and are being actively pursued, but I regret that no satisfactory method has yet been worked out. The issue of a draft Welfare Order is also under consideration, and I hope that a decision will be reached very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

ASCOT RACES.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the increase in the number of officers of the Metropolitan Police employed in consequence of Ascot Races, from 16 on 20th June, 1922, to 224 on 20th June, 1928; and whether he will state the causes leading to the employment of 208 more officers on this date in 1928 as compared with the corresponding date in 1922?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that my reply to a former question last Thursday was inadvertently misleading. On comparable dates the number of police employed in consequence of the Ascot Races in 1922 was 141 as against 224 this year. The increase was due to the increase in traffic.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the cost of the extra police borne by the Ascot authorities?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. The increase of traffic along the route involves extra police being employed on the ordinary roads of the country, and the cost is borne on police funds.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not this a charge on London ratepayers? Are they to bear all this extra cost for the benefit of the whole country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Most of the traffic to Ascot is from London—London ratepayers.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP).

Mr. HAYES: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether there are any Regulations in the Metropolitan Police governing the question of police officers being Members of either of the Houses of Parliament?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Membership of the House of Commons is clearly debarred by the Police Regulations and Section 18 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, which contains a specific provision prohibiting the Commissioner from being elected or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons. There is no corresponding provision as to the House of Lords.

Mr. HAYES: Do I understand that there will be no objection, in the event of a police constable being elevated to the peerage, to his being allowed to sit in the House of Lords?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should not only be delighted, but, if I should ever achieve the same high honour, I should be glad to welcome him there.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that in the case of a dispute between the head of a Department and the political head, that the political head should be answering in this House, and the other head in the other House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. Quite definitely that would not be permitted. There have been cases before in which civil servants, who would be in a somewhat similar position to the police in such a case—have been Members of the House of Lords. I remember quite well that Lord Hardinge, after he had been Viceroy of India, was appointed Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He became a civil servant. He never answered in the House of Lords, but, of course, he was represented by his Minister. I am reminded, also, that Earl Beatty, who was First Sea Lord, when he occupied that position, never answered in the House of Lords; and I do not think civil servants have ever answered questions in such circumstances when there was a Minister in existence.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will regulations be made governing the particular case of Lord Byng, to meet the case of a peer being made head of the London police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not necessary. Lord Byng, if I may say so, as Commissioner of Police, would be under the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State answers in this House for anything done by the Commissioner of Police.

HYDE PARK (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the number of charges for indecency or soliciting brought by the police under the Hyde Park regulations during the month of June; whether any convictions were recorded, and, if
so, how many; and how many of these cases were supported by uncorroborated police evidence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is "none."

Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that police activities in Hyde Park have been hampered by any recent investigation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would sooner not make an answer in regard to that matter. I did make a statement last week on the subject, in reply to a question. I think the less said, the sooner normal activity will be resumed.

Mr. HAYES: 19.
asked the Home Secretary the nature of the recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of the papers forwarded to him in the case of the two constables who arrested Sir Leo Money and Miss Savidge in Hyde Park?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that I should answer this question until the Report of the Tribunal has been published. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member will not press it, but will put it down again on this day week.

Mr. HAYES: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the reason for this question is not the Savidge tribunal which, we understood, was set up entirely apart from what transpired in Hyde Park; and is it not the case that normal conditions are much more likely to be resumed if and when the officers know how far they are to receive the measure of justice which is, apparently, being meted out to other people?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am exceedingly anxious, in the interests of these officers themselves, to arrive at a decision, but I do not think it would be right, in deference to the Commission, that I should express publicly any opinion with regard to these officers until I see whether or not the Commissioners make any remarks concerning them.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, may the House take it that there is no truth in the newspaper report of a decision having already been arrived at?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. My hon. and gallant Friend must know that I would not state to the House that I was postponing my decision awaiting the report, if I had received the report. I have not received it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the report of this tribunal, and will it be published immediately on its receipt?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope to receive it this week. I am sure my hon. Friend will allow me time to read it before I publish it. I will read it as soon as possible and publish it immediately afterwards.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the steady stream of tendentious propaganda, alleged to issue from someone in connection with the Homo Office, the worst form of which appears in this morning's papers, in reference to which the right hon. Gentleman has just given an emphatic denial?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have noticed, of course, in the Press cuttings an enormous amount of references to the police and to myself—which I should gladly have escaped—within the last few days. I inquired at the Home Office as to whether anyone there was responsible for a particular article, and I am assured they were not.

CHEWING-GUM.

Mr. HAYES: 18.
asked the Home Secretary the grounds upon which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has prohibited the use of chewing-gum by police while on duty?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commissioner has prohibited the use of chewing-gum by police officers on duty because the practice seemed to him not only to invite unfavourable comment, but also to be likely to impair an officer's capacity to deal promptly and efficiently with many of the situations which are constantly arising in the course of his duties.

Mr. HAYES: Is the order prohibiting the use of chewing-gum to be extended to a prohibition of the consumption of chocolates by the Commissioner; and, if so, will it have any effect on the administration?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not much more difficult to answer questions properly when you are chewing gum?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is one of the reasons why the Commissioner has prohibited the practice. I am also informed that in blowing a whistle you may blow the gum into the whistle.

Mr. HAYES: There is a serious question involved here. Is the prohibition of the use of chewing-gum extended to a prohibition of the purchase of chewing-gum? In fact, the purchase of chewing-gum has been prohibited in the service canteens, and, that being so, why is an officer, who may not drink beer while on duty, allowed to buy beer in the canteen when he is off duty?

PENSIONED NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFICERS.

Mr. MALONE: 20.
asked the Home Secretary the number of pensioned naval and military officers who are at present holding salaried posts in the Metropolitan Police Force; and the total amount of annual salaries now being drawn by such officers, and the total amount of annual pensions in respect of their previous naval or miltary service?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Five. The aggregate amount of their salaries is £6,300 and of their pensions £2,543 10s.

Mr. MALONE: Is it the case that nine out of 19 of the higher officials of the London police are ex-naval or military officers; and does the right hon. Gentleman think that sufficient chance is given to members of the police force to receive promotion?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the necessity for disciplining the police force, does he not think it most appropriate to employ ex-officers of the Army and Navy?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With great respect to you, Sir, I suggest that these questions raise matters which can more easily be debated on the Floor of the House. I shall be prepared to answer them fully on Wednesday next.

INVESTIGATIONS (B. A. BEAGLE).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received from a solicitor, acting on behalf of Bernard Arthur Beagle, of 29, Brook Mews,
Lancaster Gate, London, a copy of a sworn declaration containing allegations regarding the methods adopted by certain specified officers of police in endeavouring to procure from him incriminatory declarations as to a crime committed on 28th July, 1926; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I have received a copy of the declaration sworn upon 7th June with regard to incidents alleged to have occurred while Beagle was detained in police custody from 13th to 15th February last. I at once communicated with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and have now obtained from him detailed statements by the police officers concerned with regard to what actually occurred. It is not possible for me within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question to deal fully with the detailed allegations made by Beagle, but I have satisfied myself that his statements are grossly inaccurate. In particular he makes specific allegations against a named officer of oppressive methods during and throughout the night of 13th February, whereas it is conclusively proved that the officer in question did not see him at all until late in the morning of the 14th. Beagle was arrested as a deserter from the Army—a fact not alluded to in his declaration—and his detention from the 13th to the 15th when he was charged before a magistrate was due to his having given false particulars. The crime referred to in the question as having been committed on 28th July, 1926, was what is known as the Bayswater murder, and the fact that Beagle was questioned——

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: "Mr." Beagle.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at his colleague's question, he will see that the "Mr." is not included in the main question. The fact that Bernard Arthur Beagle was questioned with regard to that murder was due entirely to his having volunteered a statement that he was near the scene of the crime at the time when it is supposed to have been committed. From beginning to end the statements in the declaration are denied in toto by the police officers concerned,
and if he wishes to proceed with his charges I can only refer him to his legal remedies.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Since the right hon. Gentleman is convinced that the statements made in the sworn declaration are grossly inaccurate and untrue, does he propose to take any steps against this man for signing and swearing a false declaration?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is another question altogether. The man has made this declaration, and, as I say, I am informed that it is grossly inaccurate and in most respects false. It is open to him to take any proceedings he likes, either for damages against the police officers who, he alleges, treated him improperly, or to apply to the Commissioner for a disciplinary inquiry. He has already applied to a magistrate, who was sympathetic with him, but who subsequently withdrew his sympathy and would have nothing further to do with him.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will not an opportunity he afforded for investigating this allegation and all similar allegations against the police when the right hon. Gentleman appoints his Committee to inquire into police methods generally; and can he now say when he intends to appoint that Committee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The second Commission is standing over, as it was arranged that it should, until after the Report of the Savidge inquiry. After that, I am quite prepared to consult hon. and right hon. Members opposite and the leaders of the Opposition below the Gangway in reference to the terms of that Commission's inquiry, because I want it to be thoroughly satisfactory. In any case, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this and similar cases might quite properly be inquired into by that tribunal.

Mr. DAY: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention, as this sworn declaration is incorrect, to send the papers to the Public Prosecutor?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Eon. Members must leave the police and myself a certain discretion as to whether we should prosecute in every case when charges are improperly made against them. I have answered the question fully, I am satisfied
that there is no ground for the charges made, and it is for the man himself to bring forward his case in the proper quarter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the arrangements in force enable the authorities to prevent undesirable aliens coming into this country with excursion tickets and remaining; and, if not, whether it is proposed to strengthen the existing Regulations in this respect?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied with the vigilance exercised to see that the facilities granted to excursionists are not abused. I am further of opinion that the system works to the public advantage of this country.

Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that, of 11 excursionists who came from the Continent recently, eight have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment at Bow Street and recommended for deportation; and will his Department see to it that these gentry, when they come out of their present occupation, are deported?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a matter for the Secretary of State himself. All these cases are reported to me and considered by me, and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend realises that I do my best to act properly in the matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman refuse to be intimidated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"].

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. The question on the Paper refers to aliens who come to this country as excursionists, and to the steps taken by the Home Secretary, either in allowing them to remain here or in having them deported. I asked the Home Secretary not to be intimidated into discriminating between poor and rich excursionists. Surely that question is in order.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CLERICAL WORK IN SCHOOLS.

Mr. HARRIS: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board has considered ways and means of reducing the amount of clerical work in schools, and, if so, with what results; and whether, having regard to the improvement in school attendance, the Board has considered the possibility of modifying the present methods of registration of attendance in the direction of recording absences only instead of, as at present, both attendances and absences?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): As regards the first part of the question perhaps my right hon. Friend may refer the hon. Member to the reply given by him on the 23rd February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook), a copy of which I am sending him. As regards the second part, the Board have already considered the suggestion referred to, and my right hon. Friend would be inclined to consider it again if at any future time statistics of average attendance ceased to be a factor in the calculation of the Board's grants, but at present I fear that we cannot dispense with a high standard of accuracy in registration.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the Noble Lady aware that schoolmasters and schoolmistresses generally complain that their time is being occupied at school in filling in forms instead of looking after the education of the children, and cannot something be done to arrange for such information to be given at other times than in school hours?

Duchess of ATHOLL: If the hon. Member looks at the answer to which I have referred, he will see that there has been a considerable reduction in the forms to be filled in.

SPECIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. HARRIS: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have provided no accommodation up to the present for mentally defective and physically defective children; and are there any authorities without accommodation who are making provision during the current educational triennium?

Duchess of ATHOLL: According to the information in the possession of my Department, there are 240 local education authorities who have provided no special schools of their own for mentally defective children, and 257 who have provided no special schools of their own for physically defective children; but 131 of of the former authorities and 221 of the latter send children of these types to special schools provided by other authorities or by voluntary managers, and some 200 authorities make provision for the orthopaedic treatment of crippled children. In addition, about 50 authorities have arranged for the supervision of mentally defective children in their areas. As to the second part of the question, the Board already have before them proposals for the provision of five new schools for mentally defective children and 28 new schools for physically defective children.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it the policy of the Board to urge the local authorities who are not yet making any provision for these unfortunate children to proceed with making such provision as rapidly as possible?

Duchess of ATHOLL: If the hon. Member will look at the Board's Reports, he will see that very considerable progress has been made in the last three and a half years in the provision of schools for physically defective children; there has been a very marked increase in the number of such schools in the last year or two. As to the question of schools for mentally defective children, the hon. Member is aware that that matter is under consideration at the present time by a Special Committee, which has not yet reported.

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.

Mr. HARRIS: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the standard adopted by the Board in placing a limit upon expenditure by local education authorities on the provision of maintenance allowances for pupils in public elementary schools; and are the Board prepared to recognise for grant, outside the limits imposed, expenditure on such maintenance allowances where local education authorities can offer adequate reasons, such as an adequate system of contributory central schools providing a four years' course for pupils between the ages of 11 and 15 years?

Duchess of ATHQLL: The limit of one shilling per unit of average attendance relates not to the total expenditure of local authorities on maintenance allowances for elementary school children, but to the expenditure on which grant at the special rate of 50 per cent. is payable. On expenditure in excess of this limit grant at 20 per cent. is payable. The limit was announced by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), in his statement to the House on the 22nd July, 1924, and I may perhaps refer the hon. Member to that statement. It is one of the conditions of grant relating to maintenance allowances for elementary school children that the children should be attending a school which provides a course or courses of advanced and progressive instruction suitable for children over 14 years of age, and is properly organised for that purpose.

PLAYING FIELDS.

Mr. COWAN: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board have had under consideration the desirability of encouraging in all possible cases the provision of playing fields for the use of scholars attending post-primary schools; whether there is any reason for the omission of reference to the provision of playing fields in Circular 139V and the New Prospect in Education: and whether it would be possible for the Board to issue a letter of advice or suggestion on the subject to local education authorities?

Duchess of ATHOLL: My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider most sympathetically proposals for remedying the existing shortage of playing-field accommodation, but the circular and pamphlet, to which the hon. Member refers, were concerned with the specific problem of school organisation and school supply, rather than with that of the provision of general facilities for the children, and it would be wrong to regard the absence of reference in these documents to the provision of playing fields as any indication that the Board are not fully alive to the importance of such provision.

Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that a good many of these schools are going up at present, and that hardly any of
them have playing fields provided with them, would it not have been better to have dealt with this question immediately while the ground was being bought on which to build the schools?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The matter is being dealt with in many cases of the new schools that are being put up, and I think the local authorities are generally aware how necessary the Board consider the provision of playing fields to be.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the Noble Lady not think it would be better to make it compulsory for the local authorities, when they are building new schools, to provide playing fields for them? Will she watch what they are doing in Vienna?

TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY.

Mr. COWAN: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education when the Report on Technical Education will be published; and whether the Report will be accompanied by an official circular, as in the case of the "New Prospect in Education"?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Memorandum which is being prepared on the present relations of technical education and industry. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to publish this Memorandum before the Recess. He does not anticipate that there will be any occasion to issue an accompanying circular with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXIMETER CABS, LONDON.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the price paid for a taximeter-cab is of necessity much higher than that paid for the average landaulette of similar horsepower, he will inquire whether it is possible to alter the Scotland Yard regulations so as to enable a taximeter-cab driver to purchase a vehicle equally safe and efficient at a lower capital cost?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These regulations were recently reviewed by a Departmental Committee whose Report was issued at the beginning of this year, and they have been amended to carry out the Committee's recommendations in all respects except that relating to the turning lock. As I explained on the 29th March, I could not accept the latter recommendation in the present condition of London traffic.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Miss WILKINSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain insurance committees have decided that insurance practitioners must not order for their patients vitamin preparations on the ground that they are not drugs but food, whilst other committees allow doctors to prescribe vitamin preparations; and whether he can ensure that insurance patients are not deprived of such necessary products recognised by modern medical practice?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The question whether any particular preparation can be regarded as a medicine within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Acts is one to be determined by the local insurance committee, and would only come before me formally on an appeal from their decision. I am, however, aware that there is a divergence of practice between committees on the point, and I am proposing to issue a statement for the purpose of assisting insurance practitioners and committees in their consideration of it in future.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Sir BASIL PETO: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increase in the number of small houses built during the last two years, it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts in order to enable the owners of single houses purchased for their own occupation to obtain possession of them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in a position to make a statement in regard to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, but I hope to be able to do so before the end of the present Session.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the enormous increase demanded by certain property owners whose houses have been decontrolled, will the right hon. Gentleman also take that into consideration before reaching a decision?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall take all relevant matters into consideration.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not the case that even now, where alternative accommodation is available, the owner of a house may procure possession for his own son?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that there are often difficulties in the way.

RENTS, RAWMARSH.

Mr. LINDLEY: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Rawmarsh urban district council requesting him, in view of the inability of a large percentage of the tenants of the council houses to pay the rents at present charged, to grant them permission to reduce the rents under the assisted housing schemes, and to make a grant to them to enable them to reduce the rents of the houses erected under the various Housing Acts; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Rawmarsh urban district council referred to by the hon. Member. As regards houses erected under the Act of 1919 the council have been advised of the steps it is necessary for them to take with a view to the reconsideration of the rents charged by the council. As regards the Acts of 1923 and 1924, the extent to which assistance can be granted is set out in these Acts, and I have no power to vary the grants payable thereunder.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation of Members of Parliament on this question from many other parts of the country, where the same difficulty has arisen, and will continue so long as we have this distress in trade in the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never refuse to see a deputation of Members.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of meeting a deputation of local authorities who are in this unfortunate position, since they happen to know the exact situation better than some Members of Parliament?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The local authorities can make any representations.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least 13 local authorities have made representations, and up to the present all that they have received is merely a copy of the Regulations under the 1919 Act? When will he consider that question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider it when I get the applications.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODING, MIDDLESBROUGH.

Miss WILKINSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received the Report of the Middlesbrough Corporation regarding the floods on the Marten Road estate; whether he is aware that householders have suffered severe losses because of the inadequacy of the drainage; and whether he can make any arrangements for some ex gratia compensation to be paid to these people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a report from the council. It shows that losses were suffered by some householders, and that the flooding was due to very exceptional rainfall, combined with a rising tide and a north-east wind. As I previously informed the hon. Member, I have no authority to make any payments.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar floods happened in 1924, and is he going to take any steps with the Middlesbrough Corporation to increase the outlet from this property, of which the Ministry is joint owner, so as to provide against a similar contingency in future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Minister of Health has no power to increase the outlet of this particular place, or any other place, but no doubt the council will take it into consideration.

Miss WILKINSON: I did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would increase the outlet. All I asked is whether he cannot take some steps to see that the outlet is increased, because this happened three years ago, and nothing has been done in the meantime.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will certainly keep the matter under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF (REPAYMENT).

Mr. LINDLEY: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will circularise the various boards of guardians requesting them not to press for repayment of relief in those cases in which the production of a medical certificate was made a condition for the granting of such relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of the action to be taken by the boards of guardians in the recovery of relief granted upon loan must obviously be determined in the light of the circumstances of the particular cases and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the issue of such a circular as is suggested.

Mr. LINDLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extraordinary hardship on some of these people, who are unable to meet the payments, and will he give the matter his consideration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a matter for the consideration of the boards of guardians themselves.

RATES, EAST AND WEST HAM.

Miss LAWRENCE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health the approximate increase or decrease in the poor rates of East and West Ham County Boroughs, respectively, if, according to the scheme set out in Cmd. 3134, each county borough is to become a separate Poor Law authority?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the first paragraph on page 24 of the White Paper, on which the approximate figures for 1926–7 are given.

Miss LAWRENCE: Is the Minister aware that the position of West Ham is extraordinary and special; in fact, so much is stated in the Report; and will the right hon. Gentleman at the earliest possible opportunity enter into consultation with the boroughs concerned with regard to the application of the scheme to their localities.

Mr. CHAMBERLAPN: The whole matter is under consideration now, as stated in the White Paper.

Miss LAWRENCE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect a decision?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When I come to a decision as to the proposal.

CASUALS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).

Captain FAIRFAX: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received an appeal from the Norfolk Vagrancy Committee for assistance in providing extra remuneration for medical officers of Poor Law institutions now called upon, by order of the Ministry, to examine all casuals for small-pox; and, in view of the fact that this work is outside the duties ordinarily performed by these doctors, whether he will undertake to defray all or part of the additional fees involved?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. There are no funds at my disposal out of which such a contribution as is suggested could be paid.

Captain FAIRFAX: Does my right hon. Friend expect these doctors to do the extra work gratis, or does he expect the local authorities to defray the extra cost?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All that I can say is that I have no power to make any contribution.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the medical officers undertake the inspection of casuals in the evening, and thus give some value to their inspection?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That would certainly involve a claim for an extra fee.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING RELIEF (BAKERIES).

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers asking for an amendment to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill in order that the productive departments of retail hereditaments may be brought within the scope of the Bill, in view of the fact that the great majority of the bakeries will receive no relief from the Bill as drawn, and that in the London area
alone only 25 per cent., and those the largest baking establishments, will receive relief and the remaining 75 per cent. will probably receive no relief; and what action he is taking in view of the necessity of reducing the price of bread.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement I made in the course of the Debate on Clause 3 of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement was vague and unsatisfactory, and that under the guillotine we cannot discuss the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be impossible for me to improve upon it satisfactorily.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.

Sir B. PETO: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representations from boards of guardians as to the risk to the community from un-vaccinated persons; and whether he intends, in view of the spread of small-pox in various parts of the country, to make any change in the present facilities for exemption from vaccination of infants.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, this question will be considered in connection with the Report of the Committee on Vaccination which is about to be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

MOTOR DUTIKS (DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN).

Major COHEN: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the remission or abolition of the tax which is payable by ex-service men in possession of a motor attachment to their tricycles.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. I presume the hon. Member refers to disabled ex-service men who use specially constructed invalid tricycles. The annual rate of taxation on such vehicles is 5s.,
and I do not think there is any ground for remitting this nominal registration fee.

ESTATE DUTY (AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY).

Mr. RILEY: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the loss to the Exchequer for the financial years 1926–27 and 1927–8 due to agricultural property-being assessed for Estate Duty on the rate provided in the Finance Act, 1919, instead of the current rates for 1926–27 and 1927–8, respectively.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): It is estimated that the relief from Estate Duty granted by the Finance Act of 1925 in favour of agricultural property amounted to £144,000 in 1926 and to £237,000 in 1927.

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that on an agricultural estate of £100,000 it means £6,000, as against a non-agricultural estate, and whether, in view of the remission which next year will be given of £4,500,000 additional, he is prepared to recommend the withdrawal of this special advantage?

OILS IMPORT DUTY (SCOTTISH SHALE INDUSTRY).

Mr. SHINWELL: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether representations have recently been made to him by the Scottish Oil Company in respect of the withdrawal of the Kerosene Tax and the need for rendering assistance to the industry, particularly by the granting of favourable Government contracts; and whether he proposes taking any action in the matter?

Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has considered whether the effect of the withdrawal of the Kerosene Tax on the Scottish shale industry could be offset by the placing of Government contracts, but he regrets that after a very careful examination this was found impracticable.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. Member aware that the Chancellor raised the hopes of this depressed industry only to dash them again? Is he aware of the serious position of the industry at the present moment, and will his right hon. Friend not do something now, having regard to the whole situation?

Mr. SAMUEL: The matter has been under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; perhaps the hon. Member will put his question to him.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is that to say that if I put the question down to the Chancellor it will be answered?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WIRELESS AND CABLE CONFERENCE.

Mr. A MMON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Committee of the Imperial Conference appointed to consider Imperial wireless and cable communications will be ready?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I understand that the Imperial Wircless and Cable Conference hope to be able to submit their Report shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES (DESIGN).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the design of the proposed Bank of England notes received the approval of the Treasury?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. The responsibility rests with the Bank of England.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state for the latest available year the amounts of the following grants to local authorities in England and Wales: assigned revenue grants: grants under the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 and 1923; percentage grants in aid of the following health services: tuberculosis, maternity, and child welfare; welfare of the blind; venereal disease; mental deficiency; and classification grants for Class I and Class II roads in London and county boroughs; and the grants for the maintenance of scheduled roads in county districts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The amounts for England and Wales for the year 1926–27 of the grants in question, payable to local authorities, are as follow:



£


Assigned revenue grants (excluding £3,026,171 applicable to police services, £807,260 applicable to higher education, and £1,445,411, being the proceeds of local taxation licences which do not pass through the Local Taxation Account)
3,671,335


Grants under the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 and 1923
4,684,210


Percentage grants in respect of the under-mentioned health services:




£



Tuberculosis
1,640,098



Maternity and child welfare
767,082



Welfare of the blind
3,195



Venereal disease
302,158



Mental deficiency
505,642





3,218,175


Classification grants for Class 1 and Class II roads in London and county boroughs
1,439,882


Grants for the maintenance of scheduled unclassified roads in county districts
1,249,278


The foregoing figures do not include the under-mentioned amounts granted to voluntary associations:



Percentage grants in respect of the under-mentioned health services:




£



Maternity and child welfare
197,119



Welfare of the blind
112,082



Venereal disease
152



Mental deficiency
8,422





317,775

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the new process lately discovered whereby the production of beet sugar will be considerably increased and the cost of production reduced; whether he can say what the estimated increased production and the estimated reduced cost are; and whether there will be an increased number of workers employed for longer periods than at present?

Captain BOWYER (Lord of the Treasury): I assume the hon. Member is referring to the process described in
a Report on the Desiccation of Sugar Beet published by the Stationery Office in 1927 and carried on at the Eynsham Factory, which began manufacturing sugar on a commercial scale in May, 1928. Up to date subsidy has been paid on 38 tons of sugar and 80 tons of molasses. The factory has been working for too short a period on a commercial scale for any reliable deductions to be drawn as to costs or as to the effect of the process on labour requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (EDUCATION INSPECTORS).

Mr. DAY: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the fifth appointment to the post of inspectorship in connection with the education of Kenya has now been made; and the amount of remuneration this position carries?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No, Sir; the post has not yet been filled. The scale of salary attached to the post is £400 per annum rising to £720 per annum, but the Governor of Kenya is prepared to agree to a starting salary in excess of £400 per annum if circumstances should justify a larger initial rate of pay.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any applications have been made for the post, and, if so, how many?

Mr. AMERY: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS AND COLONIES (MINISTERS' TOURS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the total cost of his tour through various parts of the Empire; whether any part of the expenditure has been or will be met by the Dominions and Colonies that were visited; what is the estimated cost of the tour undertaken by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; whether the whole of the cost will be met from the sums allocated in the Estimates for the Department; and if it can be stated what other countries, in addition to Java, not part of the British Empire were visited and the objects of the visits?

Mr. AMERY: In reply to the first and second parts of the question, the total expenditure chargeable to the Vote for the Dominions Office in respect of my recent tour was £3,055. This is exclusive of the expenses of a member of the staff of the Empire Marketing Board who accompanied me. These expenses (which will be met from the Empire Marketing Fund) amounted to £554. During my stay in the Dominions which I visited and in Southern Rhodesia, I and my staff were the guests of the several Governments; I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of their generous hospitality. As regards the third part of the question, the total estimated expenditure chargeable to Imperial Funds in respect of the Under-Secretary's recent tour in the Far East is £845, exclusive of the expenses (estimated at £337) of a member of the staff of the Empire Marketing Board, who accompanied Mr. Ormsby-Gore. Apart from this latter sum, which will be defrayed from the Empire Marketing Fund, the total cost of Mr. Ormsby-Gore's visit chargeable to Imperial Funds will be borne on the Colonial Office Vote. As regards the last part of the question, no foreign country, other than Java, which the tinder-Secretary visited in the interests of agricultural research and development in Ceylon and British Malaya, was included in his itinerary.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (LIQUOR SMUGGLING).

Viscountess ASTOR: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the length and breadth of the buffer zone created between Northern and Southern Nigeria to check the smuggling of liquor into Northern Protected Territories?

Mr. AMERY: I presume that the Noble Lady refers to the country between the northern frontier of the Southern Provinces and the prohibited zone into which liquor may not be transported except with a permit. The southern boundary of the latter zone is a line drawn from Kaduna due west, and south-east through Ibi to the frontier of the Cameroons. Its distance from the northern frontier of the Southern Provinces varies considerably. It is not correct to refer to this space as a buffer zone created to check smuggling.

Viscountess ASTOR: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of stations and the number of Europeans and Africans, respectively, employed in the prevention of smuggling of liquor between Northern and Southern Nigeria?

Mr. AMERY: The duty of preventing the introduction of liquor into the prohibited areas in Nigeria falls upon the police and the railway officials, and there are no officers specially detailed for this duty. I have no reason to suppose that any appreciable smuggling exists.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not the fact that only passengers by rail have their luggage examined and that it is perfectly possible for natives to carry liquor in bags across the frontier, and ought they not to be watched?

Mr. AMERY: I have no doubt that if there is any evidence of appreciable smuggling measures will be taken to cheek it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Mr. MACLEAN: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the terms and conditions upon which the Dead Sea potash concession has been offered to Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. No terms and conditions have yet been settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEASIDE AND HEALTH RESORTS (ADVERTISING).

Mr. ROBINSON: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any steps are being taken by the Empire Marketing Board to advertise the seaside and health resorts of Britain?

Mr. AMERY: The work of the Empire Marketing Board is confined by the terms of the Parliamentary Vote for Empire Marketing to the furthering of the marketing of Empire products in this country. It is not, therefore, possible to expend any part of the Empire Marketing Fund on advertising the seaside and health resorts of Great Britain.

Mr. PALING: Would not the best method of advertising British seaside
resorts be for the Government to find more work and wages for British people, so that they may have money to spend there?

Mr. HARRIS: As the Board advertises the Suez Canal and Aden, would it not be possible to advertise our own seaside resorts?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

SERGEANT-PILOTS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, seeing that sergeant-pilots after five years' flying service are placed on the reserve list of pilots, he will state what means are taken to keep them efficient as pilots?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Commanding Officer of an airman who has reverted to trade employment after five years' service as a pilot is responsible that the airman maintains himself in regular flying practice and carries out as much flying as possible, and in any case not less than three hours flying each quarter. Airmen who carry out the prescribed minimum and are certified as competent pilots are eligible for a bounty at the rate of £10 a, year.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the Air Ministry advertisements for recruits, he will say how many commissions are to be granted to sergeant-pilots before their five years' flying time has expired; and what is the number of commissions designated and the number granted for 1928?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the number of permanent commissions to be granted to airmen pilots depends upon the requirements of the service and the suitability of the candidates recommended. The number will vary, therefore, from time to time, and is not subject to any arbitrary limit. As regards the second part, no such commissions have been granted so far during 1928; recommendations are to be considered in October next, but I cannot say how many (if any) will then be granted.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied with the present system of reverting sergeant-pilots, after five years' flying service, to their previous rank, status, and pay; if he has received from official or other sources information disclosing discontent among the ranks affected; and if he is willing to submit for the information of Members the documents in which approval was given for this system to be adopted?

Sir P. SASSOON: As this answer is rather a long one, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

As regards the first part of the question, the hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. When a sergeants pilot reverts to his former trade employment on completion of five years' flying service, he retains the rank of sergeant and receives the pay of that rank, but not, of course, the additional pay as pilot. He receives, however, a bounty of £10 a year conditional upon his continuing in flying practice. I have no reason to regard this arrangement as unsatisfactory. As regards the second part of the question, the rule that airmen pilots must revert to trade employment after five years' flying service has been obligatory since 1st January, 1927, and all men who have commenced training as pilots since that date have volunteered on that understanding. The rule is necessary in order to maintain the reserve. Airmen who commenced training as pilots before that date were offered the option of continuing under the old system or coming under the new rule and the majority chose the latter alternative. I am not aware of any discontent and do not see on what grounds it could exist. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

AIR DISPLAYS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, having regard to the great popular interest shown in the recent display of the Royal Air Force at Hendon, he will give consideration to occasional displays of a similar nature in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. Friend's suggestion has already been adopted within limits, the need for which he will appreciate. Last year at Birmingham the Royal Air Force gave a display in which some 35 aircraft took part, and this year arrangements have been made for some 75 aircraft to take part in a flying display which is to be held at Blackpool on Saturday next.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What about Scot-laud?

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. MALONE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the numbers of fatal accidents to pilots and passengers in the Royal Air Force during the six months ending 30th June, 1923, and the corresponding figures for the six months ending 30th June, 1927?

Sir P. SASSOON: There were 16 fatal accidents in the Royal Air Force involving the deaths of 14 pilots and 10 passengers during the six months ending 30th June, 1923, and 20 fatal accidents involving the deaths of 20 pilots and 11 passengers during the corresponding period of 1927. I should add, however, that the number of squadrons in 1923 was little more than half that in 1927 and a very much larger amount of flying was in consequence carried out in the latter year.

Mr. MALONE: Can the hon. Baronet account for this great increase in casualties?

Sir P. SASSOON: I could not discuss that matter by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPTAIN AMUNDSEN (ASSISTANCE).

Rear-Admiral SUETER (By Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there have been any further developments in connection with the offer of the Royal Air Force to send aircraft to Norway for use in the operations which are being undertaken for the rescue of Captain Amundsen; and how this matter now stands?

Sir P. SASSOON: The first request from Norway, which was for the loan of two float seaplanes, was received in the Air Ministry on Saturday evening, and an immediate reply was despatched the same night intimating the readiness
of the Royal Air Force to make these aircraft available and asking urgently for further particulars as to the type required. On Monday afternoon an answer was received to the effect that the machines required were not float seaplanes of service type but Moth light aeroplanes. An offer was at once made that the Royal Air Force should fly up to four machines of this type to Norway and there hand them over to the Norwegian authorities for use in such manner as they thought fit, since delivery by air appeared to be the quickest method available. The Norwegian Government, however, replied on Tuesday that they feared that under the latest arrangements made for the sailing of the relief vessel from Tromso the machines could not arrive in time, even if flown direct to Norway, and that, in these circumstances, whilst they warmly appreciated this ready offer of assistance, they regretted that they could not avail themselves of it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether when we first offered our assistance to the Italian authorities in the work of rescuing the crew of the "Italia" we were also in touch with the Norwegian authorities in order to co-operate with them for the rescue of the explorer Amundsen, or were we only in communication with the Italian authorities?

Sir P. SASSOON: The explorer Amundsen had not then met with his accident.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am aware of that, but surely the hon. Baronet does not wish to get out of answering my question in that way. Have we only been in communication with the Italian authorities or have we co-operated with the Norwegian authorities?

Sir P. SASSOON: In connection with the accident to the "Italia," we have only been in communication with the Italian authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — AERONAUTICAL EXHIBITION, PARIS (BRITISH EXHIBIT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps were taken to inform British aircraft manufacturers of the aeronautical
exhibition now being held in Paris and to encourage and assist them in displaying British aeronautical inventions and products; if he will explain why only one British aeroplane and certain aeroplane engines are on exhibition in view of the admitted excellence of British aeronautical material; and why no British commercial or passenger aeroplane or seaplane is on exhibition?

Sir F. HALL: 81.
asked the Undersecretary of State for India how many types of British aeroplanes are being exhibited at the Paris air show; how this compares with the number which are being exhibited by German and Italian makers; and what measures were taken by his Department to ensure that the British aeroplane industry was adequately represented?

Sir P. SASSOON: British aircraft manufacturers were fully aware of the exhibition, information having been conveyed to them from the authorities in Paris through the medium of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. The question whether it is commercially advantageous to send exhibits is one for the aircraft industry to decide, and I am informed that only one type of British aeroplane is in fact being exhibited. I have no information in regard to the German and Italian exhibits. I am not fully conversant with the reasons for which it was decided to send such a small British exhibit, but I understand that it was due in part at least to the high charges involved in transporting machines, material and personnel to the Paris Salon and to the feeling that a similar expenditure in other directions would be more helpful in selling British aeronautical material abroad.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Baronet deal with the matter personally, in view of the great importance of our exhibits being shown at these exhibitions, so that the British aircraft industry may become known abroad?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes.

Sir F. HALL: Arising out of the answer to Question 81, would the hon. Baronet make inquiry to see how the number of German and Italian exhibits compares with our own?

Sir P. SASSOON: That is not a matter for the Air Ministry.

Sir F. HALL: If it is not a question for the Air Ministry, may I ask the hon. Baronet whether, instead of shelving the question, he will take it to the Department which is concerned with it?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (MINERS).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 64.
asked the Ministry of Labour how many miners have exhausted their claim to unemployment benefit?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. BATEY: Would it not be possible for the Minister to get the figures?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I think not. As the hon. Member knows, the old rule of I in 6 is now abolished, and the only contribution qualification at present in force is that requiring eight contributions in two years or 30 within any time. The numbers of those affected we have not got.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Why is it that the hon. Member cannot supply this information?

Mr. BETTERTON: We cannot supply it because we have not got it.

Mr. JONES: Are we to take it that the reason why the hon. Gentleman cannot supply this information is because of the incompetence of his Department?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ECONOMIC CONFERENCE).

Mr. WELLOCK: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Tariffs Convention of the League of Nations has resulted in any lowering of tariffs or in an increase of most-favoured-nations treaties?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): No Convention relating to tariffs has been framed by the League of Nations. The Economic Consultative Committee of the League reporting in May upon the results
of the World Economic; Conference of the previous year, stated that the effect had been to check substantially the upward movement of tariffs which was in full swing a year ago. The Report continues:
It is true that in certain cases the preparations which at this time last year wore already being made for raising tariffs have been in part carried into effect…but even in these cases the actual rates which are in force to-day are in general much less than those which were then proposed.
As regards treaty negotiations, the Consultative Committee reported on a number of treaties concluded during the 12 months, and expressed their gratification that the treaties concluded since the Conference embodied the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEGRAPH SERVICE (SUNDAYS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General on what principle it is decided whether a town shall have a continuous Sunday telegram service, no telegram service on Sundays after 10.30 a.m., or a limited service; and whether he will state the application of the principle to Winchester, Bath, and Brighton, respectively?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The usual hours of telegraph business on Sunday are 9 to 10.30 a.m. (10 a.m. in Scotland). A continuous service is given only in large towns and at Dover and Holyhead. There are a few intermediate cases in which the size or the telegraphic importance of a town, though not sufficient to demand a continuous service, warrants some attendance outside the normal hours. Winchester has a comparatively small population and light telegraph traffic. It is therefore included in the group which have the normal hours of Sunday service; Bath belongs to the intermediate group, and has an additional hour from 5 to 6 p.m.; Brighton is of much greater size and the volume of its traffic warrants an all-day service.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIAN MATCHES (IMPORTS).

Sir F. HALL: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the importation
of matches into this country from Russia which are put up in a way calculated to deceive the public as to their place of origin; whether he will state the quantities of Russian matches imported into this country for the years 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the underselling of British matches in this way by an article produced under inferior labour conditions?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask before this question is answered, whether the last half-dozen words are in order unless substantial proof is forthcoming that the statements made in the question are true?

Sir F. HALL: May I reply to that question, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is a well known fact, and we can produce figures showing, that these matches are produced under conditions of labour which would not be recognised in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: Any hon. Member who puts down a question takes full responsibility for any statements contained in the question.

Sir F. HALL: I take full responsibility.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been called to the marking of certain Russian matches. I understand that the Customs are insisting on a more conspicuous indication of origin. I will circulate in the OVFICIAL REPORT a table giving the figures asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these Russian matches are packed in boxes which have a portrait of John Bull on them, with the name "John Bull" as the brand of the match?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: One particular matchbox which I saw had a thistle upon it. The very fact that matches are sold adorned by such patriotic British emblems indicating British origin shows that they require a corrective mark.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that any of the matches sold in Wales are not sold with the mark of the leek upon them?

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the particular box of matches which I did see, and which had

STATEMENT showing the TOTAL QUANTITIES and DECLARED VALUES of MATCHES imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland and registered as consigned from Russia (U.S.S.E.) during each of the years 1924 to 1927.


Period.
Quantities.
Declared Values.


Safety Matches.
Other Sorts.
Safety Matches.
Other Sorts.




10,000 Matches.
10,000 Matches.
£
£


1924
…
2,346
54
369
16


1925
…
324
—
35
—


1926
…
2,592
—
320
—


1927 (1st Jan. to 11th April)
…
93
—
12
—




Gross containers.
Gross containers.




1927 (12th April to 31st Dec.)
…
355,360
1,500
26,189
125

Note.—The figures for 1927 are provisional.

From 12th April, 1927, the unit of quantity by which the imports of Matches were recorded by the Customs Authorities was changed from that of "10,000 matches" to one of "1,000 containers" (for containers in which there were not more than 20 matches) and of "gross containers" (for containers in which there were more than 20 matches). No imports registered as consigned from Russia during the period 12th April to 31st December, 1927, were recorded by "1,000 containers."

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to show the effect of safeguarding industries upon prices, the cost of production in other industries, and the general trade and commerce of the country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: These matters have been dealt with frequently in debate; and I think there is no doubt that one result of the duties has been to increase production in other industries by the placing of orders to meet the requirements of industries where a duty is in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SHIPS' FUEL (PULVERISED COAL).

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that steps are being taken by coalowners, in conjunction with shipowners, naval architects, and engineers, to conduct experiments in the use of pulverised coal on merchant ships; and whether he will take steps to encourage these experiments in the mercantile services

the portrait of John Bull upon it, was sold in Bristol and not in Wales.?

Following is the table:

and anywhere else where power is required, with a view to reviving the coal industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The possibility of arranging for research into the use of pulverised fuel on board ship is now being explored by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in conjunction with a number of coalowners, shipowners, naval architects and engineers.

Mr. EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the authorities refused to allow experiments of this kind on board an old man-of-war, because they fear the success of the experiment when compared with oil, and will the President of the Board of Trade, as chief of the Mines Department, inquire into this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of that fact. The hon. Member must address any question with regard to the action of the Navy to the First Lord of the Admiralty. He may rest assured that both under the Department of Scientific Research and throughout the ship-owning world every encouragement is being given to proceed with these experiments
on the best possible commercial scale. We have already at sea a ship with a complete pulverising plant upon it.

ABANDONMENT OF MINES.

Mr. SHINWELL: 72.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether before mines are abandoned, his Department ascertains the estimated quantities of coal which would be in consequence irrecoverable; and whether his Department has sought or contemplates seeking powers for the purpose of conserving our coal resources?

Commodore KING: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN MINES, CORNWALL.

Mr. KELLY: 71.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received a combined appeal from the Cornish mining societies and scientific societies for financial assistance to enable plans and records of Cornish mines to be collected, stored in Cornwall, and made available to the public, in the interests of the safety of miners and the revival of the tin industry; and will such a combined appeal have his favourable consideration?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): No such appeal has yet been made to me. The Government is already spending, in the interests of safety, a substantial sum of public money in preparing for publication a catalogue of plans of abandoned mines, and while I will consider sympathetically any appeal from Cornwall and give any help I can, I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of financial assistance.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give facilities for the discussion of Indian affairs for at least one day before the end of the present Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: If there is a general desire for such a Debate, it can always be arranged through the usual channels on one of the Supply days.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while there may be certain formalities and etiquettes agreed to in this House, the responsibility of the House for millions
of people who are denied their independence as a whole remains, and is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to arrange it with the Opposition leaders, with the same ease with which he arranged for the appointment of the Simon Commission, by mutual agreement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that the Opposition would not he grateful for any suggestions from me, but we should welcome such a debate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any precedent for allowing a whole Parliamentary Session to go by without an opportunity for debating India?

Mr. MARDY JONESrose——

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Shinwell.

Mr. JONES: Is it in order to deprive private Members of an opportunity of putting supplementary questions simply by calling for the next question on the Paper? [HON. MKMBBRS: "Order, order!"] I protest.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must have some regard to their fellow Members. There are82 questions on the Paper. We have spent three-quarters of an hour, and have only reached No. 46. If supplementary questions increase to the extent that they are growing, I shall have to make some other arrangements in regard to them.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to say what will be the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, we shall take the completion of the Committee Stage of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill by 7.30 p.m.; Report and Third Reading of the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill; and Second Reading of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
On Tuesday, we shall take the Report and Third Beading of the Agricultural Credits Bill, and other Orders on the Paper.
On Wednesday, Supply, Committee (14th Allotted Day), Home Office Vote.
On Thursday, Supply, Committee (15th Allotted Day).
The business for Friday will be announced later. If there is time on any day other Orders will be taken.

EDUCATION BILL.

"to enable students to travel to places of education free of charge," presented by Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone; supported by Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Macpherson, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, and Mr. Harris; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Theatrical Employers Registration Act, 1925." [Theatrical Employers Registration (Amendment) Bill [Lords].]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Acts, 1900 to 1927." [North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply (Consolidation) Bill [Lords].]

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL.

[THIRD ALLOTTED DAY.]

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 4th July.]

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Entries in valuation lists as to freight-transport hereditaments.)

Amendment proposed [4th July]: In

page 7, to leave out from the word "used," in line 81, to the end of the Sub-section."—[Mr. Harney.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 120.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Albery, Irving James
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyras, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Grattan Doyle, Sir N.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Hammersley, S. S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hanbury, C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Bethel, A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Radford, E. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brass, Captain W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ropner, Major L.


Briggs, J. Harold
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnbam)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. Q.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nawb'y)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Buchan, John
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Savery, S. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, E. W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Smith, R. W. (Abard'n&Kinc'dtns, C.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. P.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Christie, J. A.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sooden, Sir Wilfrid


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Tinne, J. A.


Cachrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Loder, J. de V.
Waddington, R.


Cope, Major Sir William
Looker, Herbert William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Couper, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ellis, R. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Womersley, W. J.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Manningham, Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Fermoy, Lord
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wragg, Herbert


Fielden, E. B.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)



Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rundown, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davits, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley Frank B.


Gardner, J. P.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harney, E. A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Fenby.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out from the word "shall," in line 39, to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes, except in so far as it is occupied and used for the purposes of a dwelling-house, hotel, or place of public refreshment, and except in so far as any part thereof is let out and capable of separate assessment.
Provided that, in the case of a hereditament occupied and used for canal transport purposes as part of a canal undertaking or occupied and used for dock purposes as part of a dock undertaking—

(a) the hereditament shall not be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes in so far as it is occupied and used for the housing or maintenance of road vehicles; and
(b) no part of the hereditament, being a building, yard, or other place primarily occupied and used for warehousing merchandise not in the course of being transported, shall be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes."

This Amendment is rather an important one, making a change, not merely in the
drafting of the Bill, but in a point of substance. Sub-section (3) of Clause 6 deals with the method of determining the proportions in which a freight-transport hereditament is occupied and used for transport purposes and for other purposes. It says that
the hereditament shall not be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes in so far as it is occupied and used for the purposes of a dwelling-house, hotel, or place of public refreshment, or of providing warehouse accommodation for merchandise not in the course of transit, or of the housing or maintenance of road vehicles.
It has been represented to me that that procedure, in the case of the railways, would lead to the expenditure of a very great amount of time and work in examination and classification, with a somewhat disproportionate value in the result obtained. The properties of the railways are scattered right over the whole country. There are some thousands of railway stations, there are hundreds of local authorities that have to be dealt with, and the apportionment of all the various properties as between transport
and non-transport purposes would undoubtedly be a very large piece of work, while the proportion which the properties not used for the actual purposes of transport bear to the transport properties is, relatively speaking, in the case of the railways, comparatively small.
4.0 p.m.
In view of those circumstances, on the representations that have been made to us, we have decided to make this rather sweeping change, and to say, in effect, that all these various properties shall be considered as used for transport purposes, and, of course, subject later on to de-rating, except those hereditaments which are now separately rated and assessed, like dwelling-houses, hotels, places of public refreshment, and any other hereditaments let out and capable of separate assessment. That is the purport of the first part of the Amendment. It is, however, followed by a proviso which applies, not to railways but to canals and dock undertakings, and the proviso has two parts. The first part singles out premises which are occupied and used for the purpose of garages, and in that respect it follows the precedent already applied in the case of industrial hereditaments. On previous occasions I have explained that in the case of all industrial hereditaments we do not think it would be fair that a manufacturer who had a garage should be de-rated, because that would be putting him in an advantageous position with regard to that garage as compared with carriers who had their own garages, which would not have the benefit of de-rating, and, therefore, in order to save and protect the position of firms engaged in carrying, we specially excepted garages tin works from the de-rating proposals.
In the case of railways, of course, if such relief were given in respect of garages, it would have to be passed on, and, therefore, no outside firm is in any way prejudiced by the fact that garages owned by railways are de-rated. But when you come to docks—I do not know whether it applies to canals, but certainly it does to docks—the position is analogous, and we have thought it desirable to put in that proviso. The second part of the proviso deals with the case of warehousing, which was one of the points raised by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) on
the Second Reading of this Bill, when she directed some criticisms to the provision which, in the Sub-section that we are now considering, included the words:
providing warehouse accommodation for merchandise not in the course of transit.
I am not quite sure whether those who inspired her to make that criticism will be entirely gratified that the point which she made has been recognised, but certainly there is something to be said for a somewhat different form of words, owing to the difficulty of sorting out those properties which are used for goods in the course of transit from those which are not technically used for transit purposes although they may be used for goods being transported. Therefore, we have put in a new proviso which, in effect, says that any building belonging to the undertaking which is primarily used for storing mechandise not in the course of transport, is not to be subject to de-rating, but is to be excluded and outside the scope of the Bill. That means that we shall not have to examine each building in detail, or to pick out one floor from another or one part of the building from another. The one question to be ascertained and decided is whether the building is primarily used for purposes named in the proviso, or whether it is primarily used for what may be called the transport purposes of the undertaking.

Mr. HARRIS: May I ask why there should be a preference given to canals and garages connected with canals over railways and garages connected with railways?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As far as garages are concerned, I thought I made it clear. At any rate, I endeavoured to do so, and spent some time in explaining it. The hon. Member could not have heard.

Mr. HARRIS: I cannot see the reason for the differentiation. The right hon. Gentleman made out a case for canals, but there did not seem to be any reason why there should be a difference in the case of railways.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only repeat that in the case of the railways any relief which is given has necessarily to be passed on to certain customers of the railways. Therefore, a railway itself
will not benefit by a reduction of burden on its garages, and for that reason cannot be undercutting a private firm engaged in carrying outside.

Mr. MARCH: The right hon. Gentleman says that it will not be undercutting anyone outside. Will not the railway companies, in consequence, be able to do cartage more cheaply than outsiders can do it now or are likely to do it in the future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The relief which the railways are to obtain is to be distributed among certain specified traffics. It is not to be given to the public at large, and, therefore, there is no temptation to the railway, because it is de-rated upon its garages, to increase those garages at the expense of any outside contractor.

Mr. MARCH: Not to increase their garages, but to increase their carrying traffic as against the contractor.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not follow that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take an opportunity later of making his point clear. I think the difference between the railways and the dock undertakings with regard to warehousing accommodation is also to be found in the difference of the circumstances to which I have already alluded. The railways really cover the whole country. Their properties are distributed among the areas of an enormous number of rating authorities. Docks, on the other hand, are concentrated in particular areas, and, moreover, the dock property, obviously, will contain a very much larger proportion of warehouses than is to be found among the railways. It is a question of the relative importance of the warehouse accommodation in the two cases as compared with the value of the whole property.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman address himself for one moment to the case of the dock-owning railway companies? There is a special case there.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of a dock owned by a railway company, that, of course, goes in with the railway transport undertaking.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Do I understand that all docks owned by railway companies are railway undertakings for the purpose of the Bill, but not dock undertakings?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I am right in saying so. Of course, there are two cases. There are docks owned by railways and railways owned by docks, and they have to be sorted out for their respective purposes.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Sub-section (2) of Clause 5, he will see that there are three forms of freight-transport purposes outlined. Under "railway transport purposes" there is no reference to dock undertakings at all. It is true that under "canal transport purposes" and "dock purposes," there is a reference to railways. This is a new interpretation of the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and that docks, even although owned by a railway, would be considered as a dock undertaking.

Lieut.-Commnander KENWORTHY: Is that certain? Most of the docks in Hull are owned by the London and North Eastern Railway, but we have certain docks owned by the municipality and some by private companies, and I want to be quite certain there will be no differentiation between them, and that the docks owned by railway companies will get the same relief as those owned by municipalities and private companies.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is quite right. Docks, whether owned by municipalities or railways, will be treated exactly in the same way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask a further question in order to save a speech? The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the case of private firms. On the Second Reading the Minister said that where a dock was owned by a private firm it did not get relief, as it was not owned for the common good. So that, therefore, we are in the position that docks owned by municipalities and railways will be relieved but not docks owned by private firms.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must distinguish between the two kinds of docks—taking that word in the sense in which it is used in the Bill—owned by private firms or individuals. There is the private dock which is used solely for the purposes of the owner, and there is the dock owned by the private firm, but which nevertheless is used for public traffic. That is the one which is treated on exactly the same terms as a public dock for the purpose of de-rating. It is only in the case of a dock owned by a private firm, and used solely for the purposes of that private firm that it is not de-rated, and, therefore, is differentiated from other kinds of property.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I put the case of a firm which only supplies oil for one particular oil company, but whose dock is a convenience to the ships of many companies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is quite fair to ask me to give an opinion about circumstances which I have not had time to consider, and which, perhaps, I do not know altogether. I think the general lines I have laid down will give an indication to the hon. and gallant Member how this matter will be approached.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to be unfair, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in a matter of this great importance, but if he would consider this between now and the Report stage, and communicate with me, we might find an opportunity to elucidate it further.

Miss LAWRENCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his view, the expression "goods in the course of being transported" has a different meaning from "goods in course of transit"?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think the hon. Member will recollect that she gave certain instances where the goods might legally be held to be in course of transit, although, as a matter of fact, they might not be in the course of being transported. It might be technically in course of transit, but it could not possibly be interpreted as in the course of being transported.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The further we go with the Bill the more confused we become. One good thing that is happening is that the Bill is now crumbling to pieces, as many of us thought it would do. Under the Clause dealing with freight transport, very substantial changes have been made in the provisions of the Bill, and a further one has been made to-day by the right hon. Gentleman. He is in this Clause really behaving unfairly to the dock authorities as compared with the railway undertakings. Railway undertakings are primarily transport enterprises. Docks are not primarily transport enterprises. They are very large warehousing enterprises, and they are becoming increasingly warehouse enterprises. So that with all the advantages the Government appears to be offering to the docks, once they are translated into terms of the Bill we shall find the docks are going to come out of this very badly, because so large a proportion of their premises are devoted to purposes that are outside the terms of the Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman explained why it is that he differentiates, as regards garages, between canal and railway undertakings, but that argument will not hold water. He is going to give to railway undertakings a remission of local rates in respect of their garages, just as he has given them a remission of 4d. a gallon on the petrol they use. The effect and the intention of that, as with the rest of the rating relief given to railways, is a reduction in railway freights to the consumer. That means that the railway enterprises are, with the assistance of the State, going to be put into a position of offering the carriage of merchandise at lower rates than operated before as against road transport and as against canal enterprises. That is not treating these enterprises on the same footing at all. It is a plan whereby traffic will be diverted to the railways and taken away from canals and roads, and in so far as it does that it is clearly penalising these other forms of undertakings.
The point to which I wish to refer specially is the alteration the right hon. Gentleman has made with regard to goods in transit. The term "in course of transit" is one that has a perfectly clear meaning to the Courts of law where the whole of this Bill will have to be interpreted
within the next year or two. The term "in the course of being transported" is a new term that the right bon. Gentleman has invented in order to get him out of his difficulty. He has also put in some other new Words to get him out of another difficulty of dealing with whole buildings instead of with floors and parts of buildings. As a matter of fact he has not met the criticism that was made on the Second Reading. The only effect of these words is going to be to increase litigation. This is not going to assist in clearing up the trouble. It is going to add to the trouble.
The real point is that in the dock undertakings there is always a large amount of merchandise which is there for a variety of purposes. Some of them are actual manufacturing purposes. The completion of the curing process of tobacco at the docks is as much a part of the manufacturing process as any other process. The case of spirits has been mentioned. If you take wool, wool sales actually take place there. Are these warehouses or are they factories, or are they such a part of the warehouse as will get relief? We have not had the slightest light thrown on this by the Minister. All he has done is to give us a new form of words in pursuance of his policy of confusing the minds of the Committee. We were confused enough before, and the new words really make the situation more difficult, more complicated and more dubious than it was before. Would not the best thing be to face the fact that you cannot cut up these dock undertakings in this kind of way? Half the trouble we have had in discussion on the Bill has been this attempt on the part of the Government to cut up industrial processes and industrial enterprises. The distinction between production and distribution is purely artificial. The distinction between the actual wharves and the warehouses round the wharves is an artificial distinction. You must take the dock undertaking as a whole if you are to take the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if you give relief you should give it courageously and boldly. The courageous and bold way is to say a dock enterprise shall be relieved of its rates in respect of the whole of the enterprise.
This attempt at differentiation between dwelling-houses and refreshment rooms
and warehouses is going to make it very difficult for the dock authorities, which have always had special difficulties about their rating, and have always had to spend considerable sums of money year by year on rating appeals and on expert advice because of the complications of the undertaking. The Minister is simply going to add to their difficulties. I do not suppose he will accept any advice from this side of the House, but if he wants to give these enterprises help comparable to that which he is giving to the railways he ought to take in the garages and warehouses. Although I will admit that, in part, his Amendment is a little clearer than the original wording of the Bill, the latter part of the proviso makes the Bill infinitely worse, and we would rather have had the Bill, bad as it was, than the new Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is one that occurs in many parts of the country, but it would be unfair to expect the Minister at this stage to give a definition of the various kinds of property in wharves. The difficulty we are in is a really practical one. The competition between the railways and docks and other accommodation, warehouses and garages, is not confined merely to railway docks and those held by municipalities. In many cases they are held by Commissioners, like the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board. In some other places the docks are owned, as in one or two cases I could mention in South Wales, by private individuals, but they are used generally.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): For public traffic.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, but they were originally constructed, and mainly used, for private purposes. You cannot differentiate between them. The predominant amount of trade may or may not be by the people who actually own the docks. This is peculiarly the case in the metal trade, where perhaps the whole of one side of the dock is used for the importation of metal which is essential for the industry, and the whole of the other side of the dock may be used for the export of coal, because it suits the importing company to have
their vessels discharged on one side and loaded up on the other. There you have a distinction which is very difficult to draw, and I doubt very much whether any of the definitions we have had, in speeches, in the draft of the Bill or in the Amendments, entirely meet the point. It is one of great difficulty when you come to the case of warehouses. When is a warehouse not a warehouse? It is quite certain that in some instances the warehousing is an essential part of the process of manufacture, without the goods being held up as not being in course of being transported. Let me take an instance I used to know very well when I represented Dewsbury. Dewsbury is the centre of the rag wool industry of the world. The rag wool goes there and, while in the warehouses, it goes through the process of being sorted out, and then it goes out to all the various classes of mills that are using this wool in various qualities, drawn from different classes of garments, with different lengths of staple, and so on. It is an essential part of the wool industry that the sorting out should be done before it goes into the mill. You may say the bales of rags that come in are not in course of transit. They may or may not be. It will be very difficult for the rating authorities to decide whether or not they come within the definition the Minister has now provided.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are these docks?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, but some of them are on the borders of canals, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that it has been a difficult thing for the canal undertakings to maintain their competition against the railways. If you are going to place them under any disadvantage they will gradually go down and you will be injuring some of the concerns which are dependent on this kind of traffic. These complications are not new. They have been very present to the minds of many of us who have been engaged in rating troubles and complications in the past. Indeed, an hon. Friend beside me reminds me that there are some buildings which are warehouses at one time and are not at another. During the cotton depression in Lancashire there were a certain number of mills which ceased to be rated as cotton mills and were rated
as warehouses. That is the kind of thing which, if it occurs within the borders of this Amendment, will give rise to all sorts of trouble and confusion. I quite recognise that what the Minister is dealing with is a special class of warehouse situated in a special place. But when it comes to these complications of differentiation and so on, would it not be very much better to take the whole batch, as the hon. Member has just suggested, and really not try and draw these distinctions as between properties owned by railway companies, owned by the dock authorities, owned by the canal authorities, and owned by private individuals? If he could treat all alike—it is quite true he would not be giving that predominant advantage to railway companies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to be one of his objects—then I am not at all sure that it is not a justifiable matter. It is far better carefully to hold the balance between all forms of transport rather than try to give a special advantage to the railway companies.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman continually argues as though the railway companies are going to retain for themselves the relief which is obtained by de-rating. I maintain that they do not retain that relief, and therefore I cannot understand the argument that by de-rating in the case of railways, you are putting docks at a disadvantage if you do not also de-rate in the case of docks.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was coming to an explanation of that very point. I do not wish to take it in any imperfect form. There is very great competition between railway undertakings and many of the docks. If the railways are to have the advantage of de-rating, it is quite true that the railway rates—the charge which is made for the carriage of goods—will be reduced. You are going to attempt to try and give the advantage to those who have traffic passing over the lines. They are going to get the full advantage of it.

Sir K. WOOD: A particular traffic.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: And only special traffic. That is a very essential fact, but that means that the railway companies will in every case, under this Measure, when it really gets into working form,
be able to offer to the customer better terms than can be offered by other undertakings which may be competing with railway undertakings. Surely, that is obvious. I do not think that I am straining the point when I say that the railway companies, quite naturally, want to increase their profits as much as possible. Canvassers will go round and will make this point again and again; "It is true that we all ought to be put on the same footing, but we are going to have powers under this Act to give to certain persons who are customers a reduction of rates, and we can offer you advantages which you cannot get from any other form of transport." It is not holding the balance between the various forms of transport round the docks and elsewhere. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the question very closely before he decides upon the final form of this proviso which is going to be put into the Bill. He must have realised the complications which must arise. It is no use saying that they will not. It is difficult now, but when you get everybody having an upset and the whole of our rating system put into the melting pot again, men are not going to take the matter lying down. They will fight for their rights and differences will have to be taken into the Courts. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to do good service to the trade community, let him so far as possible relieve them from legal charges.

Mr. ELLIS: There is just one point stated by the right hon. Gentleman to which I think there is an answer. There would not be any real competition intended by the difference in the rate you got from de-rating in regard to this particular case as between canals and railways. If you examine the course of these goods which are to get relief—pit props and coal and things of that sort—you will find that the bulk of the goods will continue to go in the course in which they go at present, and the little difference that can be made by de-rating will not be sufficient to bring about a change from one system to another. There is another point which I should like to put to the Minister. I am afraid the Minister is going to have trouble, either he or those who follow afterwards, in dealing with the question of private
docks used for public purposes and private undertakings which do a certain amount of public work. I would like to suggest that he should consider this way out. It is done in certain other directions. Might not there be some direction to rating and assessment authorities to take into account the turnover derived from public use and de-rate them and rate the rest. I think that to treat the matter in that way would not be unfair as between public work and private work and as between a private undertaking and an entirely public undertaking.

Mr. MARCH: I want to follow up the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman when he was illustrating his new Clause and said there would be no competition between the railways and the outside contractors. I want to put a case, which, I think, will enable him to see that there will be a difference. Take for instance a railway which conveys, say, 20 trucks of bricks. In the ordinary way the contractors would take those bricks away from the railway to the various depots where they were wanted. If the railway company is going to be de-rated to a certain extent, will not they be able, if they feel inclined to do so, to cart those bricks to the factory or place where they are required at a cheaper rate than the outside contractor? They will be able to do it because you are giving them assistance by de-rating a certain portion of their railway sidings. You have already given them some relief by not charging them the petrol duty of 4d. per gallon which is being charged on the outside people. People outside are not getting any de-rating for their garages or stables or shops or warehouses and they are also having to pay the extra 4d. per gallon on petrol. The same thing may apply in regard to timber en route to the shipyards. The railway companies convey truckloads of timber which is required at the docks and the shipyards. Usually, the contractors do the carting. If the railway companies make up their minds to do this work, they will be able to cart the material from a station or goods depot to a ship at the docks cheaper than an outside contractor can do the work. Therefore you will be favouring the railway companies to the disadvantage of the outside contractors.

Mr. SEXTON: I am very much concerned at this attempt to differentiate between the railways and the docks. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in a case like this? It may have been my misfortune, but I spent a large portion of my life as an ordinary dock labourer, both in the capacity of discharging and loading vessels. I want to know what the right hon. Gentleman would do in a case like this. There are two processes at the docks, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) pointed out, namely, the discharging and the loading of ships in different berths. When a ship is discharging, is she to be excluded or included? When a ship is loading is she to be excluded or included? The question of warehousing is one of very grave concern, and I am anxious to know what length of time is to be the test as to when a dock shed is a warehouse and when it is not a warehouse? In the old days when there was only a quay level shed and a cargo was passed immediately across the quay on to the vehicle or wagon, it was all right. The warehouses nowadays are of two and three stories and the goods are stored for a considerable time to await the instructions of the consignee. Are they during that period to be included, or are they to be excluded as not being within the process of legitimate transit? From the definition of the right hon. Gentleman, there would appear to be considerable doubt on this point.
These are questions which are going greatly to confuse the administration of the Act in the same way as the administration of the Workmens Compensation Act was confused when an attempt was made to decide when a ship was not a ship. I have a lively recollection of what occurred at that time. The word "ship" was left out of the Factories Act, and the Workmen's Compensation Act only included those trades covered by the Factories Act. A ship was only a factory when it was moored alongside the dock, and only that side of it was a factory which was moored. The starboard side which was not moored to the dock was not a factory, while the port side which was moored was a factory. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one of the legal technicalities which arose out of that. Men working on the
quayside were working in a factory. The men working on the other side were not in a factory. A man was engaged in driving a winch and he was taking goods from the port side to the starboard side, and while he was lifting goods from the port side he got his finger crushed and came under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. A man who took his place was lifting a "sling" of pig-iron from the starboard side when it collapsed over the hatch and killed a man working below on the port side. No compensation was paid because the "sling" came from the non-factory side.
This is where it is leading the right hon. Gentleman and those who are advising him. You must either include the whole of the dock, or you are going to cause endless confusion in regard to legal technicalities while administering the Act. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, a double storage shed at the docks which store goods for an indefinite period is not going to be considered to be entitled to be included. There is hardly anything else to-day on the docks except double storage sheds. The goods are placed in the storage sheds for weeks at a time. For the life of me I cannot see that these niggling technicalities are likely to give any satisfaction either to the dock-owners or to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, or that any tangible result will follow from legislation of this kind.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: This matter about the docks is very important. On the question of the new Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not agree with the interpretation of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). I can quite see the necessity for not de-rating the private warehouse as such, because it is obvious, if it is mainly used for private purposes, the relief will not be passed on. All the great docks, Leith, for instance, are run by statutory companies or boards. They do not make profits in the ordinary sense of the term. Such profits as are made on the turnover go back either to the undertaking, by way of improving it, or they are used by way of lowering the charges on freights. Therefore, the object aimed at by the de-rating proposals in regard to the railways
is actually obtained at the present time in connection with the working of the statutory dock undertakings. The dock undertaking of Leith is generally recognised as being extraordinarily well and efficiently managed. Those who have to operate the statutory docks at Leith will complain, if the right hon. Gentleman consults them, because their chief competitors are two railway docks at Methill and Grangemouth, and those two competing docks will get an advantage. At the present time, because these two docks are operated by railway companies, the railway companies by means of a differential rate are able to attract trade to their own docks. If things were equal and all three were statutory companies, the major part of the traffic would go to the docks that were best run. The Leith dock authority will complain that they are at present rather unfairly treated in competing with these other two undertakings, and I have no doubt that the same complaint will apply to dock undertakings in other parts of the country.
As I understand it, the Amendment, as drawn, will give to the warehouses of the railway companies, as transporting companies, de-rating relief, but in the case of canal undertakings and in the case of dock undertakings it will not give relief to the warehouses in so far as they are covered by the definition in the last part of the Amendment. If a dock undertaking and a canal undertaking has a warehouse attached to it, equally with a railway undertaking, and all the three warehouses are used for public traffic, will they all get the benefit of the de-rating proposals, or is it only when the warehouse is on the dock or canal undertaking which is privately owned, and privately operated for the private purpose of a particular firm, that this limitation applies?

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member repeat his specific question?

Mr. BROWN: I have endeavoured to make myself clear, but it is very difficult, without consulting those who are particularly interested in this matter, to put the point clearly. Let me put two questions, this way: (1) Here is a railway dock at Grangemouth, here is a warehouse at Leith, which is operated by a statutory company, and here is a canal,
also with a warehouse. The three warehouses are used for public traffic, for public purposes, and not for the private purpose of the owners of the various undertakings—the railway company at Grangemouth, the canal somewhere else, and the statutory undertaking at Leith. Do all the three classes of warehouses get the advantage of de-rating under this Clause? (2) If that be so, is the sole effect of the Amendment, as drawn, to debar from the de-rating relief warehouses in possession of private firms, the canals of private firms and docks used for private purposes for private firms? A third question is impossible to answer; therefore I will not put it.
It will be difficult, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Runciman), has stated, to decide when a warehouse is not a warehouse for goods in process of transportation. If we could be informed here and now by the Minister what is the answer to the questions which I have put, it would help to clear matters materially. Will the three classes of undertakings to which I have referred all get the advantage of the relief—the dock and the railway equally pass on the benefit to the transporter of the goods—or will the sole effect of the amended Clause be to debar canals, docks and warehouses privately owned, from receiving the relief?

Miss LAWRENCE: Some reference has been made to certain remarks which I addressed to the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, with regard to the question of the docks and to those who inspired me. I am not in the least ashamed of the source of my inspiration. I have represented a dock constituency and municipality for many years, and there I have learned to understand something of the detailed business of the Port of London and its effect on the lives, the prosperity and the conveniences of the working people. When first I read the Bill it appeared to me that the dock conditions were unworkable from the point of view of rating, and I at once took steps to consult merchants and the Port authorities. One of the series of Amendments to which my name is attached has been prepared by the Port of London Authority, and the Harbour and Docks Association, and the second set have been prepared by the Public Wharfingers Association. Of those Amendments only one
is left to be discussed. I want to lay down the principle that you should treat transport undertakings, such as docks and warehouses, fairly. If you favour one, and if your real desire is to help industry, perhaps the export industry has the greater claim. It is idle for the Minister to say that it does not matter that one undertaking in particular is to be de-rated, because it will pass on the benefit by offering either lower dock rates or lower railway rates. That is what we mean when we talk about the effect of de-rating this or that portion of railway or dock property. Every portion of doe property which you de-rate means that there will be a lowering of the rates, and an additional attraction to business.
In a multitude of ways, this Bill discriminates unfairly between railways and docks. Take the question of the wine trade. The Great Western Railway Company have a bonded warehouse, and the dock authorities have bonded warehouses. The bonded warehouse owned by the Great Western Railway Company will be de-rated, but the bonded warehouse at the docks, at any rate to a considerable extent, will not be de-rated. Those bonded warehouses will be doing exactly the same class of business, that of holding wine in bond for maturing, and so forth. The railway bonded warehouse will be de-rated, while on the other hand the dock bonded warehouse will not be de-rated. It is not merely that the dock bonded warehouse will not be de-rated, but they will have an extraordinarily difficult task put upon them of sending in their claim for part of the bonded warehouse according to the purpose for which it is used. That is an unjustifiable differentiation against the dock undertakings. Take the coal trade. The railways have dumps of coal which are really for the purpose of storage. They are in the nature of open-air warehouses. Those dumps will be de-rated. If you go to the docks, you will find dumps of coal, only very much bigger, within the curtilage of the docks, awaiting transit. The railway dumps of coal will be de-rated, but the dumps of coal at the docks will not be de-rated. Again, this Bill will put the dock companies at a disadvantage. I could go on mentioning other classes of storages which are carried on at the docks and the railways in which the same differentiation is made.
I come now to a matter which is of special importance to business men of all kinds. The first part of the Amendment:
except in so far as any part thereof is let out and capable of separate assessment.
relates to the docks. Paragraph (b) says:
No part of the hereditament, being a building, yard, or other place primarily occupied and used for warehousing merchandise not in the course of being transported, shall be deemed to be occupied and' used for transport purposes.
I do not see any particular difference between goods "in the course of transit" and goods "in the course of being transported." I do not see any particular difference in the words, in the ordinary literary meaning. "In the course of transit" has been the subject of many legal definitions, and I can perfectly well see that goods "in the course of being transported" will be interpreted by the Judges as goods "in the course of transit." [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] "In the course of transit" is, of course, "in the course of being transported," although one is supposed to be a little bit narrower than the other in its meaning. But that is not the main difficulty. The main difficulty is that the same terms are used very indiscriminately for goods which are in the process of being transported and goods which cannot be held in any way to be there for the purpose of transit. This does not concern very much the newer London docks, which are mainly sheds by the edge of the water used for the purpose of transport, but the older docks, the London Docks, the West India Docks, the Surrey Docks, St. Catherine's Dock are used for mixed storage purposes of goods in the course of transit.
I have given as an illustration the wool trade as a trade which is perhaps predominately a warehouse trade, but the warehouse in which the wool is stored is used for goods in the course of transit. Certain warehouses are used partly for goods which are in course of transit and partly for goods which are stored. The difference is perfectly well recognised at the docks, because a transit rate is charged for goods which, in the opinion of the harbour authority, are passing through, while a different rate, a consolidated rate, a rate for a longer period, is charged for goods which are being
stored. Those who understand this business and have considered the matter in relation to this Bill feel that the duty of having to separate the hereditaments will be very difficult, particularly having regard to the use of the word "primarily," and they have drafted an Amendment which asks for a little concession, and that where 10 per cent. of the annual value of the hereditament is attributable to non-transport purposes, that should be overlooked and the hereditament should be treated as if it were occupied and used wholly for transport purposes. You say to a factory, "You may ignore 10 per cent. of the hereditament," but, when you are dealing with a dock you use the word "primarily," and nobody knows where they are. What the dock authorities ask for definitely is that they should be treated in the same way as the railways, and should be allowed to ignore the 10 per cent. of business which is not primarily transport' business. I have the opinion of the business world behind me in this matter.
5.0 p.m.
I come to the general considerations which move us on this side of the Committee. I have said over and over again how very much you hinder industry, trade and commerce when you draw up these lines of division. When you come to the dock business you come to a business which, of all businesses, is the most complicated. It is partly transport, and perhaps the most important part of all the transport of this island. It is partly warehousing. A very important part of the warehousing of the City of London is done at the docks. It is also partly manufacturing—manufacture as far as tobacco is concerned, as far as tea is concerned, and as far as wine is concerned. When you see the trade and commerce of England, the distributing business of England, as it were, within the great dock walls, you see what you are doing when you try to draw these fancy lines between warehousing, distribution, transport and manufacture. All these four things are carried on at the docks, sometimes in identically the same building. Then you have a picture of the revaluation of the Port of London and other ports and the trouble to which the whole world will be put by the artificial transmutations in the Minister's Bill.
There are many persons in the House who understand dock interests thoroughly, and we are having a proper discussion on the dock question. Under the guillotine we never had a proper discussion of the commercial or manufacturing interests outside the docks. Inside the dock we get the whole of these things together, and any child can see what folly it will be to set the valuers to work in making a number of calculations for no earthly purpose at all. I hope that before this discussion is over, having regard to the concessions to the railways, the Minister will decide to treat the docks exactly as he treats the railways. Let him knock out every one of these distinctions; let him get rid once and for all of this business of measuring up the floor space of the warehouses. The Minister says that the making of a concession to the railways does not matter, because they will hand it back again. Will not the docks hand it back again? There is no point in that argument at all. If it does not matter, in giving the railways a little more, because they will use it to reduce rates, exactly in the same way, if a little more is given to the docks, they will use it to reduce rates. We shall then do away with the wasteful competition which is to-day a very real thing.
We all desire that transport should be carried on by the method that is most suitable, that takes least labour and that uses better the fixed capital already possessed. Giving a little bribe to people to send their goods by rail instead of by the docks, making coal carried by train cheaper than water-borne coal—that is what the Government are doing under this scheme. It is merely wasting resources and putting an additional handicap on commerce. For the sake of simplicity I again ask the Minister to do what I advised him to do on Second Reading, that is to go to the dock authorities, give them a remission of rates and ask of them a remission of their charges. The scheme as outlined by the Minister I regard as a wanton interference with the course of business.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), in opening this very interesting discussion described the Amendment and its progress through Committee as indicating that the Bill was "crumbling to pieces."
It was a very curious phrase. I thought that the whole purpose of the Committee stage of a Bill was the consideration of matters of this kind, so that the Committee might have the advantage of the experience and the contribution of every Member, as long as there was no interference with the principle of a Measure. It will be within the recollection of many Members of the Committee that on the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend expressly stated that he was desirous, in Committee, of taking advantage of suggestions that were made, and I do not think anyone should complain about the Bill crumbling to pieces when we are showing a proper anxiety to meet cases of a substantial nature which are put to the Committee. I can understand some hon. Members being opposed to the Bill, but the House adopted the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, and I take it that it is the view of most Members that we should try to make the best of the Bill. Therefore I take exception to the statement, directly my right hon. Friend shows any desire to meet Members of the Committee, that his proposal is the crumbling to pieces of the Bill. When we refuse an Amendment, on the other hand, it is said that we will not take suggestions from anyone.
This is a very important subject and just the kind of subject which is suitable for discussion in Committee. It was with the desire of meeting objections which have been put before him that my right hon. Friend moved the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to cover two very important points. The first is that which has been raised by the railway companies of the country, and it is dealt with in the first part of the Amendment. I am very glad to know that not a single Member of the Committee has taken any exception to the alteration that we have put forward in the Amendment. I think it will be generally agreed that the case which the railway companies made out has been met, and that the Amendment will make it easier for them to do their part under the Bill. Then we come to the second part of the Amendment. Some valuable speeches have been made this afternoon by hon. Members who are intimately connected with this particular aspect of the case. We are very desirous of hearing criticisms of this kind, as naturally we want to make the Bill as
workable and fair as possible. The charge that has been made, at any rate by certain hon. Members, is that we are behaving unfairly to the dock authorities. Many Members, although they corrected themselves afterwards, showed by their speeches that they have ignored fundamental differences.
It cannot be emphasised too often that the railway companies have to do two things. Hon. Members sometimes recognise one of those things and sometimes the other. The railway companies have to put this money into a pool, and out of that pool they have to relieve certain basic trades. The hon. Lady asks, "Why should not the other undertakings in turn, the docks, get the same amount of benefit?" The whole principle of the Government scheme is to relieve certain basic industries of the country, and the scheme will not achieve its object if we put the dock companies and others in that position, because they will not be able to carry out the fundamental obligation of the scheme. The hon. Lady referred to the words of the Amendment and said that the Judges would see very little difference in the change that has been made.

Miss LAWRENCE: I said I was afraid that that would be so. I was most careful not to speak dogmatically.

Sir K. WOOD: I should have thought that the first thing the Judges would say, when they came to interpret the paragraph refered to, would be "Ah, there has been a considerable alteration made in the phraseology. In place of the old words which we have interpreted so frequently in the Courts there have been incorporated some, other words." There has been a considerable change made, and there is very little likelihood that the fear of the hon. Member will be realised. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) made one of those contributions which we always appreciate in our Debates. He asked a question about the private dock, and as to what test would be applied to decide whether a private dock was used partly for private traffic and partly for public traffic. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Clause 5, paragraph (c), he will see that it deals with an undertaking where a substantial portion of the business is concerned with public traffic.
Therefore the test to be applied, before a private dock is put in the position which I understand the right hon. Gentleman desires, is whether or not a substantial portion of the business is concerned with public traffic. With regard to his next point, he will remember that assessment committees can always amend the lists in order to meet the varying circumstances of the particular hereditament.
He also said that other undertakings, which he did not define, might be in direct competition with the railway companies. I wondered as he was speaking of what undertakings he was thinking, because the relief which is being given by the pool is only going for the use of certain trades, and I wondered what undertakings could be considered in direct competition with the railway companies in that case. One of the reasons why the Government have endeavoured to give this relief is the fact that railway companies are in a rather peculiar position. I am not sure that I have properly appreciated the point put by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March). As I gather he put the case of some contractor dealing with a railway company, and argued that the fact that the railway garage was coming within the scheme would give some advantage to the railway company. I fail to see that. In the first place, railways have to pay the Petrol Duty for any petrol they use and, in the second place, any revenue they may receive in respect of the garage goes to the pool and, therefore, I cannot see how the apprehensions of the hon. Member can possibly arise. However, I will study his speech further because I may not have done full justice to it.
Finally, let me read a statement I have prepared on the general position. It will sum up the matter and also answer the questions which have been raised. A dock owned by a railway company is considered to belong to a dock undertaking, as such. Warehouses in docks will be treated alike, whether they belong to a railway company or a dock pure and simple. Docks, whether they are owned by a railway company or canal or dock authority, will be treated exactly alike and warehouses belonging to any of them will be de-rated or not accordingly as they are used primarily for transport or
storage. Finally the warehouses which are to be re-dated irrespective of user are those which are connected with railways, but any relief obtained by railways in respect of them must be handed on to the selected trades. I have endeavoured to meet the difficult points which have been put by various hon. Members and I hope I have made some contribution to the Debate. I am sure the Committee will agree that my right hon. Friend and myself have tried our best to meet a very difficult situation.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation which he has given. I take it that what he has just read is what the Minister intends. I wonder whether they will look more carefully into the drafting and see whether it actually carries out what they intend. If that is what they intend and it is put into the Bill, I think the Committee might accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that where the part of the net annual value of the hereditament attributable to purposes other than transport purposes does not exceed 10 per cent. of the part thereof attributable to transport purposes the hereditament shall Be treated as if it were occupied and used wholly for transport purposes, and where the part of the net annual value attributable to such other purposes exceeds 10 per cent. of the part thereof attributable to transport purposes the part attributable to such other purposes shall not be treated as being attributable to those other purposes except in so far as it exceeds 10 per cent. of the part attributable to transport purposes.
The essence of the Amendment is that the word "primarily" in the Bill is very vague indeed. We have dealt with this and similar questions in three ways in this Bill. When we were dealing with a factory business which has a very small non-industrial hereditament beside it, we said that unless there is 10 per cent., it shall not count at all. That is a very comfortable way of dealing with the question; and that is the way we deal with it in Clause 4. In this Clause we are dealing with buildings, some of which are of an exactly similar character. In this Amendment we are dealing with freight transport hereditaments which have a very small portion not used for freight and transport. It is strongly
urged that it would be to the convenience of dock authorities if this concession which we made in the case of a factory can be made to them. If you have a factory with less than 10 per cent. as a non-industrial hereditament you say to the proprietor that he need not trouble to send up his claim because "we will not bother about the 10 per cent." Is there any reason, when you are dealing with a great transport undertaking which has a little corner which is not freight transport, why you should not deal with them in precisely the same manner as you deal with a factory. This is not a controversial matter; it is a matter of business, and the view, strongly expressed, is that it would be a great convenience if a dock undertaking had not to consider these details. Where you have a warehouse with quite a trivial corner used for storage, less than 10 per cent., you might cut it out altogether. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I am right in saying that this Amendment was put down before the Amendment which we have just passed, and I put it to the Committee that the method we have now adopted makes this Amendment quite unnecessary and, indeed, impossible. We have taken another method. We have said that the distinction between the various parts of an hereditament which are to be considered as used for transport purposes and those which are not, is to be decided according as the building, yard or other place, is primarily used for the one or the other. Having decided that you cannot say that you will bring in this 10 per cent. provision. I put it to the hon. Member that the very points which she criticised in the original drafting of the Bill would appear again under her proposal, and that they have already been met by the proposal which the Committee have just carried. She says: why give these proprietors all the trouble of picking out this part and that, measuring up this floor space and that floor space, and deciding what valuation is to be attached to this part or that. We have done away with all that by the last Amendment. All that has to be done now is to take any particular building and decide primarily whether it is being used for storage or transport. There is no question of measuring and valuing.

Miss LAWRENCE: My point is that the words "except in so far as any part" are in the Amendment which we have just carried.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We are to find out whether it does include 10 per cent., and in order to find that out we have to find if the buildings are, as the hon. Member says, used partly for one purpose and partly for another, one floor used for one purpose and another floor used for another; a surveyor will have to go in and make an exhaustive examination, measure up all the respective parts and say whether they amount to 10 per cent. of the whole. All that is avoided by the Amendment we have just carried. Then the analogy between docks and industrial hereditaments is a false one. In the case of industrial hereditaments you are dealing with a large number of small people, and whether you include or not in the de-rating proposals certain parts of those factories which are not strictly used for productive purposes, nobody is affected except the owner of the factory; but in the case of the docks you have a whole area treated as one hereditament and if you say that 10 per cent. is being used for transport and 10 per cent. for another purpose, it is 10 per cent. of a large amount of value, it will represent a considerable amount of value. It might mean that you would bring in warehouses which themselves are of considerable value, and it would react on persons who own warehouses which are not part of a dock and who are competing with the docks. They would have a just grievance if this 10 per cent. were applied to the dorks and not to them. The Amendment is now inconsistent with the proposal the Committee have just accepted, and I hope they will reject it.

Mr. E. BROWN: We put forward the Amendment mainly in order to avoid the intricate valuations which were necessary under the original drafting of Clause 6, but I think the form of words the Committee have just passed will avoid that better than this Amendment. For my part, I do not propose to press the Amendment after the alterations which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Miss LAWRENCE: In the circumstances, I think it wise to withdraw the
Amendment at this stage, but if it does appear that there is any difficulty I shall raise the point again on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 117.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[5.30 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gates, Percy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Grace, John
Oakley, T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Penny, Frederick George


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Hacking, Douglas H.
Perring, Sir William George


Atkinson, C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harney, E. A.
Preston, William


Bainlel, Lord
Harris, Percy A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hartington, Marquees of
Remer, J. R.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bethel, A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hilton, Cecil
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berke, Newb'y)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Shepperson, E. W.


Buchan, John
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Skelton, A. N.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n&Kinc'dlne, C.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hurd, Percy A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark
Steel, Major Samuel Strong


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Iveagh, Countess of
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jephcott, A. R.
Tasker, R. Inigo


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Templeton, W. P.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, J. Q.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tinne, J. A.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Livingstone, A. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cope, Major Sir William
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Couper, J. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Waddington, R.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Loder, J. de V.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Looker, Herbert William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lougher, Lewis
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lynn, Sir R. J.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Dixey, A. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wilson, R. H. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wolmer, Viscount


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Womersley, W. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fermoy, Lord
Meller, R. J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Forrest, W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)



Freemantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Captain Bowyer and Major The


Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Marquess of Titchfield.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ammon, Charles George
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Auertillery)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Bt Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, E.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smillie, Robert


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Stamford, T. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Day, Harry
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dunnlco, H.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.



Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions as to London.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:
and, in relation to any corrections in respect of totals of values made under the said provisions, Sections forty-one and forty-four of the principal Act shall apply as they apply in relation to alterations in such totals of values made in consequence of decisions on appeals.
This Amendment has been introduced in order to deal with a point raised by the London County Council, and it is intended to take the place of the Amendment which appears next on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) to insert the words:
Provided that if an assessment committee make any correction in the totals of values the provisions of Sections forty-one and forty-four of the principal Act shall apply to such correction as if the correction were an alteration in the valuation list within the meaning of those sections.
The details of the values of the various parishes in London are communicated to the London County Council and the London County Council, in turn, communicates them to the various bodies concerned. Any alteration in those details is accordingly communicated to the
London County Council. In the Second Schedule to the Bill we are applying to London certain provisions of the Rating and Valuation Act. One of these deals with the correction of clerical errors and provides that an assessment committee may correct any clerical or arithmetical error in a valuation list, but there is no provision there that the alteration in the total value of the parish, which would be brought about by such correction, is-to be communicated to the London County Council. The object of the Amendment is to bring any correction of that kind into line with the existing practice in regard to any other alterations in values. I may add that this Amendment has not only been agreed to by the London County Council but is also concurred in by the Metroplitan Boroughs.

Mr. HARRIS: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this concession which is made necessary because of a technical flaw in the Bill. I have no doubt that this provision was omitted unintentionally and I think I can say, as far as the London County Council are concerned, that they welcome its insertion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out from the first word "Act," in line 27, to the end of line 28.
This Amendment has been put down in order to seek enlightenment on the actual wording of this Sub-section, which at present reads:
In this Act, and in any Act passed after the passing of this Act in relation to London.
This seems to be a case of legislating prospectively. These words would appear to limit the definition of "rating authority" in any future legislation of this kind to the description in this Subsection.

Mr. GILLETT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he satisfies himself that he secures uniformity of assessment between these different authorities. I know that there has been legislation recently, but in the old days in London it was recognised that the assessment authority in one borough might have a tendency to make the assessment rather high, while in another borough the tendency would be to make it rather low. How does the Minister propose to get uniformity and justice under the scheme which is proposed?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that the hon. Member can raise this point on the Amendment now before the Committee, which merely deals with the question of whether we should or should not leave out the words
and in any Act passed after the passing of this Act in relation to London.

Mr. GILLETT: The point is that under this Sub-section these definitions are to be made permanent. However, I can raise the matter on the Question of the Clause standing part of the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry that I cannot, on this Amendment, deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett). On the point as to the use of the words "any Act passed after the passing of this Act," it is quite natural that a query should be raised as to why we should be providing for an Act which is not on the Statute Book. The reason is that we are here dealing with questions of the rating authority, the rating area and the assessment area. The idea of the draftsman is to secure one definition for all these
rating Measures and so avoid that confusion and complexity that constantly arise if you have varying definitions. It would he very greatly for the convenience of people who have to interpret the law that Parliamentary recognition should be given to definitions of this kind. It is not a matter that is vital to the Bill, but the people who are drafting the Bill are very anxious that it should be included for the reasons I have given.

Mr. GREENWOOD: What it really means is that so long as this Bill, when it is an Act, stands on the Statute Book, for all time, this Parliament not being able to modify it, as regards the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple, the Sub-Treasurer and the Under-Treasurer thereof respectively are the rating authority, whatever Parliament may say, or do, or think to the contrary.

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think it is so, and it is a novel method of legislation. In this Bill it is legitimate to lay down what certain expressions which are being used in it shall mean, but to go on to say that these expressions are to mean this and this in any Act that is passed after this Measure becomes law, is unreasonable. I see no purpose in putting in these words. For the purposes of this Bill, it is perfectly legitimate to define rating authorities and so on in London, but surely it is not reasonable in this Bill to define in perpetuity, for all future Acts of Parliament relating to London, what the rating authority and area and the assessment area shall be.

Mr. HARRIS: London was left out of the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 owing to the pressure of time. It was not possible to bring London into the general scheme owing to the necessity of meeting opposition in the rural areas, which made London's position exceptional. Therefore, the position of rating in London, where we have the Revenue officers assisting us, is different from the position in the rest of the country. As I understand it, the reason why these words are put in is that it is assumed that London will be brought into line as regards assessment and valuation with the rest of the country. If I am not right, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me. It seems curious that, as regards London, this special
reference to possible future legislation should be inserted. One of our difficulties is the immense variation of assessments throughout the county of London, and we have always desired uniformity, because the difference of standards has pressed most unfairly on a great number of ratepayers. I assume that the reason why these words are inserted in this Clause is that the Government intend to bring London into line with the rest of the country, or the rest of the country into line with London.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary was about to tell us of some other ease where similar words have been used, and, if so, it would help us to come to a conclusion. If these are new words and a new method of drafting, I think we should require more serious consideration of them.

Sir K. WOOD: If you do not have these words in you will have to put into every Act of Parliament these definitions over and over again, and it is with the intention of avoiding that that the draftsman suggests these words. The scheme will not collapse if these words are not included, but, as I say, they are put in to avoid putting into every Act all the definitions which are set out in this Clause. It is not a matter which will wreck the Government in any way, and it is purely a matter of convenience, but if hon. Members strongly object to these words, my right hon. Friend would not desire to insist on them.

Sir H. SLESSER: I gather that this is a new method, and I would like to draw attention to these words. Particularly am I emboldened to do so, because the right hon. Gentleman tells his colleagues that the Government would not be wrecked on this question in any case, and, therefore, they will have an open mind, so that we can proceed to deal with the question on its merits. As I understand it, we now have this position, that we are dealing with a new device. Instead of the ordinary definition Clause stating that in relation to London the expression "rating authority" means so and so, we have these words:
In this Act and in any Act passed after the passing of this Act in relation to London.
My first comment on that is that it does not even limit the phrase to Acts dealing with rating. You may have an Act dealing with quite a different matter altogether in which the words "rating authority" may for some reason become material, but it may not be an Act dealing with rating at all. Therefore, it seems an unfortunate form of drafting, and it ought to be confined to the subject matter of this Bill. Although Parliament can in future alter the law, for no Act binds a Parliament of the future, if stands that unless there is a special Act to the contrary, wherever the words "rating authority" occur, they may mean this. Is it a very desirable thing that on a question of drafting we should give a definition in an Act and then go on to say:
and in any Act passed after the passing of this Act"?
It seems to me rather a clumsy and undesirable form of drafting, and it is an extraordinary thing that with all the years of experience of drafting that the competent draftsmen who prepare these Bills have, this is a new—[Interruption.] Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give us any precedent?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not know one way or the other.

Sir H. SLESSER: If, served as he is with excellent information on all points, the right hon. Gentleman does not know one way or the other, I think the Committee may fairly assume that there is no precedent, for if there were, I am sure we should have heard of it. I think it is a bad form of drafting, and I submit that it would be very much better if we confined the definition to the Act with which we are dealing and did not try prospectively to attach it to laws which are yet unborn. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman has found a precedent, as I said at the beginning, it will modify one's views very considerably. Perhaps he will now tell me in what connection there is a precedent, because we are rather nervous of his precedents. I remember Clause 4 of the Rating Bill and how he misled the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler), who had no difficulty in showing that the case he cited was dealing with a quite different matter.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The fact that my right hon. Friend and I were unable at the moment to give a precedent for these words in the Bill is, I think, a measure of the importance which we attach to them. My right hon. Friend has said that they did not originate with us; it was not an idea of ours, but a suggestion of the Parliamentary draftsman, founded upon his own experience, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, extends over many years, in order to avoid certain difficulties which had been met with in the past. I am quite at a loss to understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman should think that it would be a convenience to confine the meaning of these terms to rating Acts. Surely it would be more necessary, if you admit the necessity at all of laying down a standard definition, that it should apply to all Acts relating to London in which the words might occur, otherwise you might easily have a confusion between the meaning of the term in one Act and its meaning in another Act. Therefore, this really says that unless otherwise stated in any given Act after this, these words always have the same meaning.
I am glad to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman rests his assent or otherwise to this proposal entirely upon the question of whether there is a precedent. He is really a good, old-time Tory. "As it was in the beginning," so it shall be hereafter. As long as we can find a precedent, he is quite satisfied. I am delighted. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will consult the Interpretation Act of 1889, he will find that Section 16 begins with the words:
In this Act. and in every Act passed after the passing of this Act the following expressions shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the meanings thereby respectively assigned to them, namely"—
and it gives a series of expressions which are defined. I hope that hon. and learned member is satisfied.

6.0 p.m.

Sir H. SLESSER: Not at all. The purpose of an Interpretation Act is to say that words used shall be understood in that connection in the Interpretation Act, but that is quite a different thing from the question whether a particular Act shall apply a particular expression to all other Acts. An Interpretation Act is not dealing with a specific definition,
but with matters of general definition, like plural or singular, masculine or feminine, and, of course, an Interpretation Act must carry its definitions forward, or obviously it would not interpret. I was asking for some Act other than the Interpretation Act, which simply carries forward general definitions. I want some Act which carries forward a specific definition like "rating authority," I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that no such definition has ever been found. We are doing something new; the question remains whether we are not doing something bad. In my view, while it is legitimate for the Interpretation Act to carry forward a definition, it is not legitimate for a specific Act to carry forward such a definition as "rating authority."

Mr. ELLIS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to take this definition out of this Bill perhaps he would be satisfied if it were Inserted in the Interpretation Act.

Sir H. SLESSER: No—I would not.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The precedent of the Interpretation Act is useless for this purpose, because everyone knows that for certain definitions they have to go to that Act. One is anxious, in drafting a Bill like this, to save the trouble of those who have to consult the law. If you are to do that, it is much better in any future Act to say, if necessary, that the expression "rating authority" bears the same meaning as in some other Act. If that is done, one knows where to look, but, instead of doing that, here you are still having legislation by reference, but the reference is not given, and one will have to remember the Act to which to go in order to find out the meaning of the phrase. It is good for some of us that the law should be obscure, but, in the interests of the general public, the Measure should be made clear, and the Minister will be well advised to accept the Amendment.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I am bound to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). I agree with him that the Interpretation Act has nothing whatever to do with it. That Act is a compendious Measure which deals with a number
of phrases, and says that the meaning of so-and-so is in such-and-such Act of Parliament. It is for purposes of interpretation only and applies to existing Acts. Here, however, we have a new Measure. I thought it right, out of loyalty to my hon. and learned Friend, to support him so far, but whether I

shall support him in the Lobby is another question.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 131.

Division No. 250.]
AYES.
[6.5 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Ganzonl, Sir John
Oakley, T.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gates, Percy
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Frederick George


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Grace, John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Atkinson, C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Perring, Sir William George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Philipson, Mabel


Balnlel, Lord
Hall, Lieut.-Cot. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hanbury, C.
Preston, William


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bennett, A. J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Raine, Sir Walter


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, J. R.


Bethel, A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brass, Captain W.
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Shepperson, E. W.


Buchan, John
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Skelton, A. N.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Templeton, W. P.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Lamb, J. O.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tinne, J. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Loder, J. de V.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Looker, Herbert William
Waddington, R.


Cope, Major Sir William
Lougher, Lewis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Couper, J. B.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warrender, Sir Victor


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
MucAndrew, Major Charles Glen
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Williams, Com, C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Dixey, A. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Withers, John James


Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Meller, R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mline, J. S. Wardlaw
Wragg, Herbert


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)



Fermoy, Lord
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Captain Bowyerand Captain Wallace.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Fraser, Captain tan
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smillie, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Lunn William
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonddas)


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Forrest, W.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry



Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GILLETT: May I take up my interrupted conversation with the right hon. Gentleman? I want to ask him two questions. I understand that the Revenue Officers would be responsible. Would he inform me whether there is one Revenue Officer at the head of those who are responsible for the whole of the County of London, or whether it will mean that one officer has perhaps two or three divisions under his care. Will the whole question come before one man, or two, or three men, so that the point which I raised will be considered? The other point on which I wanted to ask a question is this. I understand the

Revenue Officers will have a say in the first general assessment, but that in the following years the Revenue Officers will have no say whatever in regard to the assessment. Will he tell me the position in regard to future years?

Sir K. WOOD: In London, the position is different from other parts of the country. The Revenue Officer comes under the Inland Revenue authority. The duties of the Revenue Officer and his subordinates and the areas in which they will work will necessarily be arranged by that Department.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 114.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
[6.15 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Astor, Viscountess
Bennett, A. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Atkinson, C.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bethel, A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Betterton, Henry B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balniel, Lord
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R. Skipton)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Boyd Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hanbury, C.
Perring, Sir William George


Brats, Captain W.
Harney, E. A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briant, Frank
Harris, Percy A.
Philipson, Mabel


Briscoe, Richard George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Preston, William


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, J. R.


Buchan, John
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bullock, Captain M.
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Burman, J. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sandon, Lord


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark
Skelton, A. N.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cope, Major Sir William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Couper, J. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lamb, J. O.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Livingstone, A. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Templeton, W. P.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Looker, Herbert William
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lougher, Lewis
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dixey, A. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tinne, J. A.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Ellis, R. G.
MacAndrow, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Waddington, R.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macintyre, Ian
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)-


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macphereon, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fenby, T. D.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fermoy, Lord
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Fielden, E. B.
Idargesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Forrest, W.
Meller, R. J.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Withers, John James


Ganzonl, Sir John
Montell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Gates, Percy
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'ge & Hyde).


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris, R. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Grace, John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, Col. Ht. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld.)



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Meld, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.
Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.


Hacking, Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh



Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromfield, William
Day, Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromley, J.
Dennison, R.


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Duncan, C.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Dunnico, H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Close, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Barr, J.
Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Gosling, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Cove, W. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Greenall, T.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sitch, Charles H.


Groves, T.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Grundy, T. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smillie, Robert


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hardie, George D.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Stamford, T. W.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick
Stephen, Campbell


Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hayes, John Henry
Murnin, H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Potts, John S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, Ben
Westwood, J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kirkwood, D.
Scurr, John
Windsor, Walter


Lawrence, Susan
Sexton, James
Wright, W.


Lawson, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lindley, F. W.
Shinwell, E.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

CLAUSE 8.—(Expenses.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 117.

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[6.23 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cope, Major Sir William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Couper, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.


Astor, Viscountess
Dean, Arthur Wellasley
Hurst, Gerald B.


Atkinson, C.
Dixey, A. C.
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Balniel, Lord
Ellis, R. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jephcott, A. R.


Bennett, A. J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bethel, A.
Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Betterton, Henry B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lamb, J. Q.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fane, Sir Bertram G.
Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Loder, J. de V.


Brass, Captain W.
Fraser, Captain tan
Looker, Herbert William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lougher, Lewis


Briscoe, Richard George
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Buckingham, Sir H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bullock, Captain M.
Grace, John
MacIntyre, Ian


Burman, J. B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Major A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hacking, Douglas H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hanbury, C.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Meller, R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harvey, Majors, E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Chlicott, Sir Warden
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hilton, Cecil
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hohler Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'td.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Waddington, R.


Nield, Rt. Han. Sir Herbert
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Oakley, T.
Shepperson, E. W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Perring, Sir William George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n& Kinc'dine, C.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smithers, Waldron
Wayland, Sir William A.


Philipson, Mabel
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Preston, William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Raine, Sir Walter
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonot George


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Streatfelid, Captain S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Remer, J. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Withers, John James


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wolmer, Viscount


Ropner, Major L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynamouth)
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Templeton, W. P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thorn, Lt. Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wragg, Herbert


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.



Sandon, Lord
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hill, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Harney, E. A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bondfield, Margaret
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Sowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Briant, Frank
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)


Connolly, M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silverton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T.I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunlarmllne)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Forrest, W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govsint
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Glilett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Genteel, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Mr. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

CLAUSE 9.—(Application to Scotland.)

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, after the word "shall," to insert the word "not."
Since this Bill has been printed, quite an abundance of reasons have been given why this Measure should not apply to Scotland. The Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland, comprising 201 burghs, has met in Edinburgh to deliberate upon this subject, and the result
of its deliberations has been forwarded to the Secretary for Scotland. In case the right hon. Gentleman may not remember that communication, I will quote two lines from the second paragraph:
The Convention is specially desirous that a matter of such importance as the position of Scotland in regard to this Bill should be made clear and distinct.
You cannot have legislation clear and distinct when it takes such a form as the provisions contained in Clause 9. To
show that the Government could not make Clause 9 complete in its application to Scotland I need only point out that Sub-section (1) begins by saying:
Sections one and two, and Sub-section (1) of Section four, and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section six shall not apply.
I think that Sub-section in itself is an admission that Clause 9 is absolutely inadequate to express what is intended to be conveyed in this Bill. If that were all, we might get through all right, but when you begin by reading Sub-section (2) you find that you are referred to the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854. In another part you are referred to the Eating (Scotland) Act, 1926 and other Acts, with the result that anyone who wishes to find what Clause 9 means must have copies of all these Acts in front of him before he can make an intelligent interpretation. I move this Amendment with a full knowldege of what it means. If we had had the same conditions obtaining in Scotland as in England in relation to rating, Clause 9 would not have been necessary. It is the differences existing between the two countries which have brought about Clause 9, and that is why we are now faced with this complicated Clause. If the systems of rating had been the same, one Bill would have done, and the reason why separate legislation has always been required for Scotland is because so many things are different.
In England the owner pays no rates, but in Scotland he pays rates. That is a tremendous difference, because it means that in England the relief goes in one way and in Scotland it goes in quite a different direction. In Scotland the owner pays the rates, and, consequently, any relief goes to the owner as well as the tenant. Why should the owner get any relief because his income from rent is not affected by good or bad trade? It is because of these anomalies and difficulties that we are moving these Amendments, in the hope that the Government will find more adequate means of expressing what is contained in the general conspectus of the Bill now before the Committee. Take two buildings, one on each side of the street owned by the same owner. The one which is used as a factory gets relief, but the other which is not used as a factory gets no relief. What is going to happen in Scotland is
that the difference between that relief on the one side and the other will mean, an increase in the rent of the man who-is getting relief from the rates. We know that in Scotland every time any relief has been given in this way it has always found its way into the pockets of the landlords. Now I come to the question of the block grants.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): Where does the hon. Member find block grants in this Amendment?

Mr. HARDIE: If I said block grants, it was a mistake. What I meant was the allotment that has to be made in consequence of the apportionment. As far as I can sec, any increase in the valuation is not provided for, and increases in valuation have not been explained at all. I wonder if the Secretary of State for Scotland has received from the local authorities in Scotland memoranda calling attention to what is likely to take place with regard to the application of this Bill to Scotland. Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge at all of the difficulties that will be created by this proposal? I would like the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain exactly how Clause 9 is going to apply in relation to the powers of the local authorities. I understand that we shall not be in order if we discuss the White Paper adumbrating the changes which are contemplated in local government in Scotland, but it is a fact that those proposals cannot come into operation until the Bill we are discussing has become an Act of Parliament, and I presume we shall not be allowed to discuss what is contained in the White Paper.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like to ask you, Mr. Hope, if we shall be out of order if in discussing this Measure we make references to the consequences in Scotland of what is proposed in the White Paper?

The CHAIRMAN: That will be out of order, unless it arises out of the apportionment proposed in this Bill. It may be argued that this or that result will take place in certain respects in regard to the assessment. So far it will be in order to discuss the whole question as applied to Scotland, but the other questions dealt with in the White Paper will not be in order.

Mr. WESTWOOD: This Measure is the basis of the now scheme of local government which is contemplated for Scotland, and it depends entirely upon what is proposed in the Bill we are now discussing.

The CHAIRMAN: That would open up a very wide discussion, and I do not think I can allow the hon. Member to go further than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) went when he took part in the discussion.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: As this Bill we are now discussing is the basis upon which the new scheme of local government for Scotland is to be operated, should we be in order in bringing to the notice of the Committee the different effects which are produced by the same scheme in Scotland and comparing them with the effects produced in England? To do that, we must refer to the new scheme.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): It is a very general phrase to speak of different effects, and I think it will be necessary to define a little more clearly what the hon. Member wishes to discuss.

Mr. MITCHELL: We have in mind the intentions stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the whole scheme. We may find that certain consequences flow from that Bill, and they may be different in Scotland from what they would be in England. In so far as Scotland is concerned, they are in direct contradiction of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed in regard to his intentions. We could not deal with that question unless we were permitted to say something outside the scheme itself.

The CHAIRMAN: The purposes of this Bill are clearly set out in Clause 1. Certain hereditaments are distinguished, namely, agricultural hereditaments, industrial hereditaments, and freight-transport hereditaments. If the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) or any hon. Member can show that the application of that proviso to Scotland will result in anomalies then he will be in order. As I understand it, there is a good deal in the White Paper which adumbrates the intentions of the Government in respect
of a future Bill, and that will not be in order. I can only suggest the general lines of the discussion, and I must decide these points as the discussion develops. The main question is that we must confine ourselves to the consequences of this Bill in Scotland as apart from England, and to the extent to which the main principles of the Bill have been modified by Clause 9.

Mr. WESTWOOD: When we were discussing the Scottish Rating Bill, the Lord Advocate took up the same attitude, and we shall be placed in a similar position unless we are allowed to traverse the whole ground of rating organisation in Scotland.

The CHAIRMAN: Quite obviously, to discuss the question of the abolition of the education authorities could not possibly be in order; that is quite clear. As regards the Scottish Rating Bill, I am afraid I am not sufficiently familiar with it to be able to draw a parallel between the rulings given upon it and the ruling that I am giving now.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether it is your intention to prevent references—and, if necessary, detailed references—being made to the different effect which the proposals necessarily following on this Bill will have upon agriculture in Scotland from what they are having in England?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. As far as regards the apportionment of the value of the heritages and so on, and the distinguishing of agricultural subjects from others, that would be quite in order, but references, for example, to new boundaries would not be in order, any more than it would be in order, on the English part of the Bill, to talk about the abolition of boards of guardians. The same thing would apply to education authorities, although their powers and areas may he modified in the future Scottish proposals.

Mr. JOHNSTON: For the sake of future guidance in the course of this Debate, may I point out that the title of the Bill says that it is:
To make provision with a view to the grant of relief from rates in respect of certain classes of hereditaments
or heritages, as they are in Scotland, and that it is obvious that this is
only a preliminary stage of a complete change in our system of local Government in Scotland, which cannot take place without this Bill; and, if block grants are necessarily involved—the Lord Advocate shakes his head, but we have the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that block grants necessarily follow, and that the reorganisation of areas of local government administration in Scotland, in the opinion of the Government, necessarily follows—are we barred in criticising, or attempting to criticise, the initial stages of this revolution, from making references to the consequences which will follow from the initial stage?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now asking—and I do not blame him for asking—for a certain freedom on behalf of Scotland which was not asked for by English Members, and which I should have had to deny if it had been asked for. For example, so far as I know, no reference has been made, in the discussions on the English part of the Bill, to the county councils becoming responsible for the roads, or to the abolition of boards of guardians, or to the merging of rural district councils in larger areas, which are all, I understand, contemplated in a further Bill. On this Bill we can only discuss, as I said before, the effect of distinguishing the classes of hereditaments or heritages and apportioning their annual value. I cannot suggest that the hon. Member should go farther than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, with considerable ingenuity, contrived to keep just within the bounds of order.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I take it that we may be allowed to use the tables in the White Paper in so far as they illustrate the difference between productive, distributive and retail businesses and freight transport businesses in various districts, whether they be mainly agricultural, industrial or distributive, as illustrated in the White Paper?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may found an argument on the degree of relief which the wharves and docks in Leith will get.

Mr. HARDIE: Further on the point of Order. In reply to one hon. Member, you referred him to Clause 1 as being the basis. Might I ask why, since Subsection (1) of Clause 9 says that Clause 1 shall not apply to Scotland?

The CHAIRMAN: The objects of Clause 1 are to be found in later Subsections of Clause 9, in which the same principles are, at any rate, sought to be carried out, though perhaps, from the hon. Member's point of view, imperfectly.

Mr. HARDIE: I am glad that the point has been discussed in relation to the White Paper, because it would seem that, while it is not going to be in order to discuss these matters fully, they are nevertheless at the back of the mind of everyone who is taking part in this discussion, and, if little inaccuracies so far as order is concerned creep in, they must be credited entirely to what is at the back of people's minds in regard to the proposals for reform in Scotland, because nothing more drastic has appeared for many years so far as the government of Scotland is concerned. Indeed, it would seem that the design is to get through Clause 9 before it is possible to discuss what is contained in the proposals, although these cannot come into being until Clause 9 is in being. I think that that is a cowardly attitude on the part of the Government. Of course, it is quite characteristic of the Secretary of State for Scotland. When it comes to anything really Scottish, he is always playing the coward behind some screen somewhere.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member meant more than to use a Parliamentary quip, but he cannot be allowed to use such an expression as that, which is foreign to Parliamentary usage.

Mr. HARDIE: If anyone is annoyed about the word "coward," I will withdraw it, and had the Secretary of State for Scotland been an Englishman I should never have thought of saying that; but we claim the right, as Scots, to deal with each other as we feel.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that there is not yet a Scottish Parliament set up in Edinburgh.

Mr. HARDIE: I did not quite catch that, Mr. Hope. Having said that about our difficulties, I want to continue with regard to Clause 9. I cannot see why there is this terrible rush and push in regard to trying to get Scotland tied up as in Clause 9. I would ask the Government to consider delaying this matter, because of the anomalies that I have pointed out, and I have only pointed out a few; the rest will be pointed out by others who take part in this discussion. We ask for delay because we know that Clause 9 does not and never can take up the rating system of Scotland as it is to-day as a working part of the Bill, and the proof of that is in this White Paper. If it could have been done by Clause 9, there would have been no need for producing this White Paper in anticipation. Behind Clause 9 is the idea of destroying in Scotland all that belongs to Scotland's history in regard to burghs and the experience of rating authorities in Scotland in burghs and counties, The idea behind Clause 9 is to wipe out all these things that belong to Scotland, and to try to Anglify us a little more through the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is a Scotsman. I am often surprised, in looking back upon history, at the things that have been done by Scotsmen against the interests of Scotland. The whole idea, as I see it, underlying Clause 9, is to destroy every local authority in Scotland, and to get that centralisation where everything that has characterised Scotland's administration of her own local affairs is to be destroyed. I had honed that there would have been some idea of getting this properly applied to Scotland, if it is to be applied, and I notice from the Order Paper that the Secretary of State for Scotland, evidently feeling—perhaps from representations that had been made to him, if not from his own opinion—that there is something wrong, has an Amendment down to Clause 9, at the end to add two new paragraphs:
(12) The assessor shall be entitled at any reasonable time of day, on giving not less than 24 hours previous notice in writing to the occupier, to enter, survey, and value for the purposes of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, and the Acts amending that Act, including this Act, any lands and heritages within the county or burgh or district for which he acts as assessor, and if any person refuses to admit the assessor to enter any lands and heritages or obstructs him in making his survey or
valuation he shall be liable on conviction by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to a penalty not exceeding 20 pounds:
(13) As respects the valuation of lands and heritages for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) Any officer or person employed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and authorised by them for the purpose shall for the purpose of carrying out his powers and duties under this Act have the like rights as the assessor to enter, survey, and value any lands and heritages to which he has reason to believe the provisions of this Act may apply, and any person refusing to admit such officer or person or obstructing him in making his survey or valuation shall be liable on conviction by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to a penalty not exceeding 20 pounds;
(b) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the assessor to consult with any such officer or person employed as aforesaid as regards any particulars required by this Section to be shown in the valuation roll, and generally for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, and such regulations may modify and adapt the provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, and the Acts amending that Act. The regulations shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made:

Provided that if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulations are laid before it, praying that the regulations may be annulled, the regulations shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
I would like to draw his attention to paragraph 13 (6), which deals with the Regulations requiring the assessor:
to consult with any officer or person employed as aforesaid"—
and so on. He is bound to be aware of the fact that already the Inland Revenue have power to object on the same standing as an owner or an occupier. That seems quite reasonable, and it is already provided for; but to ask now for the powers given in paragraph 13 (6) seems to me to be an unwarrantable interference with the assessor, whose decisions are already subject to two Courts in Scotland. When the Secretary of State for Scotland has already the whole of the actions of one man under review by an Inland Revenue officer, who is put in the same position as an owner or tenant who
is having rates put upon him, why should he seek to superimpose these powers, when already under the Scots law he has the assessor bound down by the review of two Courts? I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in putting forward this paragraph 13 (b), will be kind enough to go into the matter, if not for his own sake, for the sake of the organisation of the work that is to come. We must not forget that, no matter what Bills or enactments we pass here in regard to Scotland, we are, in this relation, entirely dependent upon men with combined experience and ability in these subjects. Everything that is being done now is in the direction of trying to get centralised control, to destroy the native ability that belongs to these areas, and to destroy the rating system of the burghs of Scotland, which is, perhaps, the envy of the world. Here we have the Secretary of State for Scotland simply inviting us as Scottish Members to allow ourselves to be crushed up and misrepresented in Clause 9, and thereby to become part and parcel of something that cannot be worked. It has not got on to the Statute Rook yet, but men who understand these things as assessors inform me that, just as soon as it gets there, the difficulties will arise, and just as soon as you try to impose the proposals contained in this White Paper, just so soon will you have another revolution in Scotland.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not propose to detain the Committee at any great length on this Amendment, as I ventured last week to offer to the Committee a few remarks giving my views on the inclusion of Scotland in a Bill of this kind. I still hold the same views, and I corroborate a good deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) in moving the Amendment. It is quite clear that this Bill is a basis upon which a superstructure is to be built in the near future, and the people of Scotland do not realise what is in store for them. When that Bill comes to be introduced, I know perfectly well what the argument will be from the Front Bench. The Front Bench will then say, "We have already passed this Bill; the system of rating has been altered; and, seeing that the system of rating has been altered in Scotland, we must
have these new authorities." I think—and I am corroborated by the quotation given by the hon. Member of the Resolution passed by the Convention of Royal Burghs which makes it perfectly plain—that the people of Scotland do not yet realise that, in six months' time, it is contemplated that all the well-known local authorities, whom they have grown accustomed to love and venerate, will be abolished. Do the people of Scotland realise that in six months' time that argument will be used? By passing this Clause, we are making it impossible for the local authorities to offer any resistance to the proposal to be made in six months' time by the Government to abolish them. That is one of my main arguments for opposing the Clause.
I do not say I shall vote for the Amendment for the reason I am going to give. I believe that the proper way to have proceeded in regard to Scottish affairs was to have had a separate Bill for Scotland. I argued that some days ago in this House. I pointed out then, that the system of rating in Scotland is entirely different from the system of rating in England, and I say that by this Clause, which has been inserted in a purely English Bill as an afterthought, you are revolutionising the whole of the system of rating in Scotland. My right hon. Friends on the Government Bench cannot deny it; they know it perfectly well. We have had no exposition of the meaning of this Clause from the Government Benches. We have only had one short discussion on the effect of the Clause. We have had no general exposition of the consequences and the effects of this Clause upon the system of rating in Scotland. We ought to have a separate Bill for Scotland. I know perfectly well there is no time for it now. What reason can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland give for not having introduced a Scottish Bill upon the same lines at the same time that the English Bill was introduced? He knows, and so does the Lord Advocate know, that you cannot deal with Scottish rating in a Clause of this kind, nor can the Scottish Members deal with it. We are simply gagged. I, for one, and my colleagues tried to draft Amendments to this Clause, and we felt that every Amendment would be out of order, because
it would be quite properly ruled out by the Chair.
The whole thing is quite ridiculous. I strongly object to the inclusion of the whole system of Scottish rating in this way in this Bill. I quite realise we are going to get a certain amount of relief and, consequently, I do not see that I can oppose this Clause. I know that this Clause as it stands will be a very great disappointment to the people of Scotland. They will regret it for many reasons, and they will regret it largely for the reason I advanced at the beginning of my speech. They do not know what this Clause portends. They have not yet realised the difficulties which are in store for them. They do not realise what is in the minds of the Government and of the Secretary for Scotland. They have not yet realised this is merely a foretaste of what is to come. Once this Clause is passed, whether amended or not, the people of Scotland will have to look forward to the new Bill with its far-reaching consequences. The real reason why I am opposing this Clause as it sands is that, if you had had a separate Bill, you would have had an opportunity of getting Scottish opinion reflected in that Bill, time to discuss it thoroughly, and in Scottish phraseology. As it is, we are fobbed off with a mere Clause in a purely English Bill. It is an insult to the people of Scotland and, though I cannot see my way to vote for this Amendment, I am greatly disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has not seen his way to introduce a Bill upon Scottish lines.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The hon. Member who moved this Amendment will forgive me if I say that, of course, he must take the responsibility of denying to Scotland the machinery—because this Bill is dealing with machinery—upon which ultimately the relief, which is going to Scotland, will go to Scotland. The complaint is made that this matter should be dealt with separately and not in a single Bill. The kind of complaint that usually comes to me from hon. Members and from my colleagues in Scotland is the delay that often takes place in getting for Scotland, according to them, the benefits which England gets. All I have got to say on that point is that here is
a case of ascertainment of values. It has nothing to do with rating, to which the, right hon. Member referred. This is the ascertainment of valuation, very detailed, it is true.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not that a highly important part of rating?

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the basis of rating?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not rating at all. It is the actual machinery to ascertain the values and, in this particular Clause dealing with Scotland, for dividing up certain subjects and specifically ascertaining the values of certain subjects. Here is this Clause dealing with Scotland, an application Clause, it is true, but if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will study it and follow the discussion which will take place to-night, they will be convinced that this application Clause is easily applied, and will be perfectly clear. In great measure it has been discussed with those very bodies, the assessors, upon whose shoulders the responsibility would light. They have explained, and said definitely, that they see no insuperable difficulty in carrying out its duties. Further, we have adopted in this Clause in explicit terms—and that is the reason for the Amendments following in my name—Amendments which will meet certain suggestions these bodies have made. I cannot think that Scottish Members as a whole, or even the hon. Member who moved it, will persist in an Amendment which would deny the setting up of the machinery, which is essential in order to carry out the general purpose which underlies this Bill.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I want to say, in reply to the brief statement made by the Secretary for Scotland, that he knows perfectly well that my hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, had no intention of seeking to take from Scotland the relief which is to be granted to England. That is the last thing any Scotsman is going to do. The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment was for the purpose of bringing in a Bill of a similar character, which would be adapted to Scottish needs. The Secretary for Scotland, in addition to pointing out that my hon. Friend was taking upon his shoulders the responsibility of denying to Scotland the relief which was to be granted to England, said that this application Clause
would be easily applied to Scottish conditions. I do not know that there is another Scottish Member in the House who will give expression to the same view that the Secretary for Scotland has expressed, that it can be applied easily to Scottish conditions. That is the difficulty with which every one of us who represents a Scottish constituency is face to face to-night. We do not believe that Clause 9 can be applied easily to Scottish conditions. We believe that, if Scottish conditions are to be adequately met, we would require a separate Bill which would be drafted in such a way as to make it fit in easily with Scotland's system of local government. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said that, while he agreed with my hon. Friend's object in moving the Amendment, he could not see his way to support it in the Division Lobby, because he believed there was no time for the new Bill. If there is no time for a new Bill, and we have to endeavour to apply Clause 9 to Scottish conditions, an enormous amount of difficulty will be experienced by all the local governing authorities in Scotland.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what sort of difficulties he means?

Mr. ADAMSON: As the hon. and gallant Member may not pay much attention to the statements of those who are not politically in keeping with his views, may I point out to him that Cameron of Lochiel has told us that it will make local government in the Highlands of Scotland an impossibility? Cameron of Lochiel has given expression to that view, and his views are more in keeping with those of the hon. and gallant Member than with mine.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman following the example of Cameron of Lochiel in all his views about this Bill?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am simply using the name of Cameron of Lochiel in reply to the hon. and gallant Member who interrupted, in order to show that even men who agree with him politically are convinced that it will have the effect I said, that it will make local government in certain parts of Scotland almost an impossibility. I will carry that argument
a step further and say to him that, in the part of Scotland which he represents, though the difficulties will not be as great as in the Highlands of Scotland, still the difficulties will not be easily surmounted. If there is no time for a, new Bill, the local authorities of Scotland will be face to face with difficulties that it will be almost impossible to surmount. The Secretary of State for Scotland would have been well advised to have introduced a Bill on similar lines-that would have been applicable to Scottish conditions and to our system of local government. However, he has chosen a different way. I think he will find, before he finishes, that his difficulty will be the greater.
I rose for the purpose of putting one-or two broad, general considerations regarding the Bill. The Amendment gives me the opportunity of discussing the date on which the relief will come into force. The Government have told us that their primary object is to give relief to depressed industries, so as to enable them to provide employment. In no part of the United Kingdom is the problem of unemployment more pronounced than it is in Scotland. We have a higher percentage of unemployment than in any-other part of the United Kingdom. If I take as an example the industry with which I am connected, the number of miners employed in Scotland is practically a third less than it was in 1924 and is steadily going down. It has fallen from 102,000 in January of this year to 93,000 in June.
Another example to show how very acute is industrial depression and how great is the need for the measure of relief which the Government have promised to-apply at the earliest moment is to be found in the fact that the export trade, on which the mining industry in Scotland has largely depended throughout the whole course of its history, is in a very-depressed condition. In 1913, we exported 13,352,000 tons, whereas last year we were only able to export 8,590,000 tons, a total reduction of 4,762,000. Another aspect of the same problem is that in the Scottish coal trade we have an agreement which divides the proceeds of the industry in certain proportions between the employers on the one hand and the workmen on the other. So depressed has been the trade during the
last 15 months that the miners' section of the Conciliation Board are in debt to the employers to the tune of £3,500,000.
Other industries beside mining are in a very serious condition. Iron and steel and agriculture are in quite as difficult a position, and, if they are to be saved from greater disaster, will require relief at the earliest possible moment that can be found. The condition of our principal industries is having its effect on our local governing bodies, and the ratepayers are having their burdens increased enormously. If this Measure is to give the large measure of relief which the Secretary of State confidently anticipates, it should come into force at least a year earlier than is provided for in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Where does the right hon. Gentleman find the date when the Bill comes into force?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have an Amendment down, which I understand is not in order, which would have given me an opportunity of moving to leave out Subsection (1).

The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is quite in order.

Mr. ADAMSON: That would have given me an opportunity of discussing the date on which the Bill is to come into force. It is to come into force after the 1st October, 1929. I am seriously suggesting that the Government should consider the advisability of bringing it into operation at least a year earlier than that date. If some of the heavier industries are to be relieved from the critical conditions under which they are labouring, the benefits of the Bill cannot be too early applied. In my opinion, the proposals contained in the Bill will defeat the object which the Government have in view. The benefits of the Bill within the prescribed areas are evidently, like the rain in the Bible, to fall on the just and the unjust alike. The relief from rates is to be given equally to industries which in some cases are earning handsome profits and to others which are steadily accumulating losses and which in many cases are on the verge of bankruptcy. That cannot in equity be defended, because you are simply taking money from the general ratepayers for the purpose of relieving those in distress
and dividing it with those who are not in distress.
I should also like to point out how unfairly this relief will work out as between persons in the same industry. The total rates paid on agricultural land in Scotland in 1927 and 1928 were approximately £1,500,000. A quarter of the land is owned by the occupiers. Excluding this, we are left with £1,125,000 of rates to be considered. Under the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, agricultural land is assessed at half the annual value, the Exchequer making up the difference. Of the remaining half, the landlord contributes three-fourths and the tenant one-fourth. Working upon this basis for agricultural land other than that owned by the occupier, we find that of the total of £1,125,000 paid by the landlords and tenants, the tenants contribute £281,250 and the landlords £843,750.
The effect of these proposals will be that the tenants will be relieved to the extent of £281,250, whereas the landlords will be relieved to the extent of £843,750. It passes my comprehension to understand how, if such a large measure of relief is to be granted to the landlords under the provisions of this Bill, you are going to relieve the acute depression in the agricultural industry of the country. You are, under the terms of this Bill, going to give to the landowning classes of the community a very large measure of relief which if capitalised will amount to a considerable number of millions. I have seen that one authority has suggested that it would amount to £17,000,000 if capitalised on the basis of 20 years' purchase. You are giving, as I have pointed out, relief to that section of the industry which, in my opinion, stands least in need of relief, whereas to that section of the industry that stands most desperately in need of relief, namely, the working agriculturist section, you are going to give a very small measure of relief indeed.
Take another example, and this is from the industry with which I am connected. I have already pointed out that we in the mining industry of Scotland have a wages agreement, an agreement which divides the proceeds of the industry after standing charges have been made on the basis of 87 per cent. to wages, and 13 per cent. to profits. During the course of the 15 months or so that our present agreement has run, we have accumulated a deficiency of something
like £3,500,000. We are £3,500,000 short of being able to pay to the coalowners their proportion of the proceeds. That proportion of the proceeds must be met before the miner can participate in any further advances in wages. We are told in the terms of this Bill that we are going to get a large measure of relief in the mining industry. But here, again, this large measure of relief will, to a considerable extent, be participated in only by one section of the trade, by the mineowner and not by the miner. There are two examples of the manner in which these proposals will work out unfairly as between one section of the ratepayers and other sections. Although I am not an expert on local government, I desire to take this opportunity of discussing the difficulties of fitting the proposals of the Government into our system of local government in Scotland. Our system of rating and our system of valuation are entirely different from the systems of rating and valuation in England, and the same proposals that you are setting up in England and Wales are not suitable for the people of Scotland.
I observe that among others things contained in the White Paper which has been issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland—and I take this as an additional example to the two I have already given of the difficulty of fitting these proposals into our system of local government—there is a statement on page 12, a footnote, which says:
The average rental per head of population in Scotland is about 25 per cent. higher than the corresponding rental in England.
There you have one of the difficulties that will not be easily surmounted by applying exactly the same principles to Scotland as you seek to apply in England and Wales. These proposals, in my opinion, will entirely revolutionise the system of local government in Scotland. They will revolutionise it in a way that will not reduce our difficulties, but which will increase our difficulties enormously as far as local government is concerned. The distribution of our population in Scotland is not similar to the distribution of the population in England. We shall have only 20 burghs in Scotland that will be independent rating authorities.

The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing to alter the rating authority in this Bill.

Mr. ADAMSON: I can assure you, Mr. Hope, that I shall try to keep as well within your ruling as I possibly can. I have only one or two sentences more to add. I was just finishing. I was just going to point out that there would be only 20 burghs in Scotland that would be independent rating authorities, whereas the vast majority of our people will be under county council government. That will place Scotland in an enormous difficulty as compared with England.

The LORD ADVOCATE: There is nothing in this Bill about that 20 burghs.

Mr. ADAMSON: I had passed from the 20 burghs. I was calling the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that almost three-fourths of our people would be under county council government.

The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing provided under the Bill to any such effect.

Mr. ADAMSON: With your permission, Mr. Hope, I should like to make a suggestion to the Lord Advocate, and then I shall have finished. If the working classes are to have any say in the future government of their country under the conditions that the Government are seeking to lay down, the same provision will have to be made in the next Bill for meeting out-of-pocket expenses and for making wages allowances, as the Secretary of Scotland made in the Education Act of 1919. I pass that on for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's consideration. I hope that the points which I have put before the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland will have their consideration, and that we may look for some improvement in a Measure which we on these benches believe will be very difficult indeed to administer, and almost impossible to fit into our system of Scottish local government.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I think Scottish Members of the Committee will be entirely in agreement with the protest against trying to apply the Government's proposals to Scotland merely by one Clause in this Bill. I am sure that we ought to have had at the very beginning—the Secretary of
State for Scotland says it would waste very much time, but not if we had started correctly at the beginning—and at the same time as the English Bill, a Bill for Scotland, and that that Bill should not have been discussed in this Committee but in the Scottish Standing Committee upstairs, and then the whole procedure upon the two Bills could have gone step by step, and in step, until they had come to the Report and Third Reading stages. I wish to say at once, as my right hon. Friend says, that I welcome any proposals made by the Government for relieving in some way and in some degree the burden of the rates upon industry and agriculture in Scotland. Characterised as these proposals are by unnecessary complications which will produce indefensible anomalies, and involve disastrous delay, as some speakers have already pointed out, unfairly as we believe many of them will work out in practice, especially in agriculture as between the different partners in the industry, and as between tenant and tenant, and ill-advised as the Government have been in choosing their tactics, we applaud the objective to which they have directed their attack, and we are anxious to co-operate, if our co-operation is acceptable, in devising fairer, more effective and better directed measures of relief. That is why it is so unfortunate that we have not been given the opportunity which we should have had if Scottish Members of all parties could have collected round the Table in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills and have thrashed out the details of a Bill.
The Prime Minister claimed the other day that the proposals of this Bill had the universal support of public opinion. That is not true in Scotland. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) referred to the opinion of the Convention of Royal Burghs, who have expressed themselves on the proposals contained in this Bill. The Convention is composed of men of the greatest experience in municipal affairs, and men of great sagacity. We, on these benches, are entitled to say that the general colour of the membership is Conservative, for although they are a non-political body, on the whole their outlook would be a Conservative outlook. They have declared that:
As yet, the legislative proposals following the Budget have presented no concrete proposal to deal with this burden"—
the burden of unemployment—
which will persist, if unrelieved, for a number of years.… It is suggested that it would be cheaper in the long run to grant special and direct relief to the areas presently affected.
I will not pursue the argument, but it is remarkable that this Conservative-minded body should take the line on this question of rate relief that has been taken by the party to which I have the honour to belong. The Convention of Royal Burghs further say:
The problem of the burden of unemployment, which is local and segregated in its incidence, cannot be solved by a redistribution of rating areas.… To mix it up with other problems of high municipal policy will simply add to the difficulties of local administration.
In a circular issued by the Convention of Royal Burghs, on the 26th June, before the White Paper was published, they say:
The Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland, representing, a6 it does, the whole of the 201 burghs in Scotland, is naturally must concerned at the proposals of His Majesty's Government.… The first two steps in the Government's proposals, namely, the relief from rates in respect of certain classes of subjects"—
and the provisions of the Bill which we are now discussing:
"have caused grave anxiety in the minds of those in charge of burghal administration in Scotland."
That quotation refers to the proposals in this Bill. As the Lord Advocate probably knows, the Secretary of State for Scotland received a deputation from the National Farmers' Union, ten days or a fortnight ago, at which they protested strongly not against the proposals of the Government—nor am I protesting against the main objective of the Government—but against the method by which the objective was to be reached.
I do not wish to deal with the industrial side of the question, because there are other hon. Members who wish to speak on that important matter, but I wish to confine myself to the agricultural side, and I would point out that, according to the speech which the Secretary of State for Scotland delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill, on the 7th June, the methods of distributing the relief to industry on the one hand and
to agriculture on the other hand, in Scotland, were different. In Scotland, the landlord pays half the rates, but in England the tenant pays the whole. In Scotland, in dealing with industrial subjects, according to the Secretary of State, the full relief which the landlord receives is to be passed on to the tenant; but in the case of agriculture only one-half is to be passed on. The first question which I wish to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland is, on what principle is that differentiation justified? I think I can see what the justification may be, but I want to hear from the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland what is their view of the justification. I think it is that the landlord is himself personally associated in the provision of capital in the productive work of the agricultural industry and, therefore, half of the relief is retained by him, in order that he may use it by putting it into the industry and improving the buildings, and so forth, on his farms. That is probably the justification. I want to know if I am right, and, if so, what measures the Government are taking to see that it will, in fact, be carried out.
I am quite sure that the vast majority of landlords who apply for and receive this relief will regard it as an honourable obligation to use the relief for the improvement of their farms and agricultural holdings, but why should other landlords—a small and insignificant minority as they will probably be—be allowed to take the relief and to put it into their own pockets? Why cannot the Government give us an assurance that that part of the relief will be used for the purposes of the improvement of the productive part of agriculture? The right hon. Gentleman may say that there are very few who will not use it in that way, but I know, and other hon. Members must know, that there are certain men who, for example, bought sporting estates since the War and their tenants have been told that the new landlord has paid so high a figure for the sporting properties that he is not going to spend any money on the agricultural side of the estate, and that he has no interest in it. There are also the cases of trustees for bondholders. An immense number of estates in Scotland, in my own county as in others, are in the hands of trustees for bondholders.
How would these trustees regard their duty. Trustees for bondholders nearly always regard their duty as being primarily to the bondholders and they, undoubtedly, will feel that they have to use this money not for the benefit of agriculture or the improvement of the estates of which the bonds are charged, but in order to recoup the bondholders.
I have not referred so far to the one half of the relief that is to be passed on to the tenant. I have been dealing with the half that the landlord retains under the Government's proposal. The other half is to be passed on, but only for existing leases. What a capricious effect that will have as between tenant and tenant. There will be one man who will have entered this year or last year on a lease for 21 years and who will have 20 years or 19 years to run. He will be relieved not only of his own rates but he will get for 19 or 20 years the one-half which is to come from the landlord. There will be another man who 20 years ago entered on a 21 years lease and he will only get a few months advantage of the relief which the Government are giving to tenants through the landlord. It may be that I am misrepresenting the Government's proposal. If so, I can only plead that we have had only one speech on the subject from the Minister and I am doing my best to understand the position. If I am wrong I shall be very glad to be corrected. As I understand it, the effect will be that there will be one man who will for 20 years get the relief and another man who will get relief for only a few months. All sorts of capricious and absurd anomalies in the amount of relief which will be obtained by different tenants will arise.
Moreover, we have a very large number of yearly tenancies in Scotland. I believe they are more frequent in the Highlands than in the Lowlands, but even in the Lowlands there are a great many. What protection is the yearly tenant to get? The landlord can give him notice to quit and he can adjust the new rent at the end of the year, letting, perhaps, the buildings separately from the land. That will be quite a feasible line for him to take. I am not suggesting that a large number of landlords will do that, but are we right to allow any case of injustice of that kind to
occur? Ought we not to devise measures which would ensure that these things do not happen? If such things are to happen agriculture will be back in its old plight eventually, but on a higher level of rent. That is what will happen and you will have, in effect, no relief of the agricultural industry by these proposals. I would quote in my support the views of another rather non-political body and rather conservative-minded body, and that is the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. I find that they wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a letter on the 2nd July in which they declare, in a Motion, that
So long as the rating relief is given to the landlord, so long should he be required to give half of it to the tenant.
Their view was that it should not be a question of the duration of the existing leases, but that so long as the relief is given to the landlord he should be required to pass it on to the tenant. That Resolution was carried by a small majority as against another proposal that the relief should be ear-marked for the upkeep of holdings and the improvement of the farms. It was considered by the Chamber that one thing or the other should be done. The chamber represents both parties in the industry, the landlord and the tenant. It was quite clear that there was a consensus of agreement that the relief should be passed on either in the shape of a reduction of rent or in the shape of improvements of buildings, so long as the relief was received by the landlord. Unless some form of security is given, undoubtedly within a certain number of years the whole of this relief will pass from the tenant.
I am not going to discuss the theory of the economic law of rent, because every hon. Member is acquainted with it, but it is that the surplus after paying the rates and the other outlay goes in rent to the landlord. In practice, what happens is that if the landlord is letting a farm he probably has six or eight applicants. Certain applicants who may have come from a distance are not acquainted with the conditions. Perhaps one of the highest applicants is considered to be a man who would merely farm to leave and then go away. Another applicant might be an ambitious young man, whose judgment could not be trusted. You strike these off the list.
Then you come to the men whose qualifications are, roughly, equal, who have sufficient capital and who are known to be good farmers, any one of whom you would like to have as a tenant. How do you decide as between these men? You take the man who makes the highest offer, and you are right to do that. It is the rule of the game so long as you have a competitive system and it is a perfectly right and proper thing to do; but the effect inevitably over a course of years will be that these men will be offering in competition with one another higher rents because the rates are lower. Therefore the whole of the relief must in the course of years go to the landlord.
There is another striking illustration of this fact, which is afforded by comparing the Scottish level of rent with the English level, as brought out in the Government White Paper. Say that a farm is rented at £100 and that the rates are 10s.; 5s. paid by the landlord and 5s. by the occupier. If the occupier offered to pay the five shillings that the owner had to pay in rates, which is what happens in England, you would expect his rent to be lower, obviously, by 25 per cent. Under those circumstances, you would expect that the general level of English rents would be lower than the general level of Scottish rents, by 25 per cent. I would not have had the hardihood to suggest to the Committee that that was in fact the case, because I should not have had the figures to justify such an assertion, had it not been for the White Paper, which states clearly that that it is the fact and that the average rental per head of the population in Scotland is 25 per cent. higher than the corresponding rental in England, which clearly proves the proposition which I have ventured to put before the Committee.
8.0 p.m.
See how bad this leaves the position of the Scottish tenant compared with the English tenant. The English tenant pays all the rates but gets lower rent; he gets the 25 per cent. lower rent. But he gets the whole of the relief. What he gains on the swings of the rent he loses on the roundabouts of the rates. But in Scotland the Scottish tenant only pays on one-quarter of the rates and he pays a higher rent in consequence. Yet he gets only eleven-eighteenths of relief even during
his existing tenancy. But what is to happen when existing tenancies expire? I have here a copy of a paper which was handed to a member of a deputation of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland which waited on the Secretary of State for Scotland 10 days or a fortnight ago. This paper illustrates the exact position it was handed to me without any indication that it was in any way a confidential document. It sets out how relief is to be distributed as between landlord and tenant as follows:
During existing leases one half of the relief to owners is to be paid over to the occupier. The net amount of relief remaining in an owner's hands will, therefore, be 7/18ths of his present rates. As leases expire the 7/18ths relief will gradually increase until it reaches the full 7/9ths.
That is an official document of the Scottish Office. It is an admission that, as leases expire, the landlord's relief will gradually increase till it reaches seven-ninths. Does the Government contemplate reaching a position when the general level of rents will have been raised and out of the taxpayers' money we shall be paying a sum of £110,000 per annum to the tenants and £770,000 per annum to the landlords? That is a question to which I hope the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State will give me a definite reply. In answer to a question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) the other day, it was definitely stated that the amount payable to the landlord would be £770,000 a year and the amount payable to the tenant £110,000 a year. I want to know definitely: Does the Secretary of State envisage that in course of time, as leases fall out and rents go up, Parliament will go on paying these sums of money to the landlords and tenants?
Another ill effect will flow from this clumsily-considered scheme. That effect will be greater insecurity of tenure. Many landowners in distress and trustees for bondholders will say: "We shall not be able to get this for long; we must make hay while the sun shines." They will capitalise the relief while they can. Consequently you will have a recrudescence of sales under the compulsion of "buy or quit." The policy of the Government offers this strong temptation to landlords to capitalise this rate relief and to take it right out of the industry
of agriculture. The new owner who buys from the landowner, who will in most cases be the sitting tenant under the buy or quit compulsion, will pay extra interest on the purchase money instead of paying the rates. I suggest that security of tenure must be the basis upon which any sound scheme of rating relief is built. To some extent this was recognised in 1923. In the Agricultural Rates Act of that year, in Clause 14, we find the following:
The relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages effected by the Agricultural Rates (Scotland) Acts, 1896 to 1923, shall not be taken into account by the Land Court in fixing a fair or equitable rent for a holding under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, or by any arbiter in determining for the purposes of Section Twelve of the Agricultural Holdings (Scot-land) Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding.
Will the Government apply that Clause or a Clause of a similar character and with similar intention and effect, to the distribution of relief under this Bill? That is one of the questions to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me an answer. I repeat that security of tenure is an indispensable basis of this Measure of rating reform if, as I believe, the right hon. Gentleman's desire is to see that it is directed in a way that will help productive agriculture the most. That is the only way in which he can avoid these sales and capitalisation of relief and the abstraction of this capital from the industry of agriculture. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consent to recast his scheme in such a way as to provide this indispensable foundation, and if he does that he will find in me one of his most ardent supporters.

Mr. SHINWELL: From what has been said it must he clear to the Committee that a Bill of a specifically Scottish character would have avoided the misunderstandings and complications that have arisen and, so far as I can see, are likely to continue for some time. If the Secretary of State had produced such a Bill it would have been simpler in character; it would have satisfied Scottish sentiment, which I suggest is of substantial importance; and it would have contained Scottish terminology, which in the circumstances is very desirable indeed. Therefore I associate myself with my hon. Friend and other
hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in protest against the inclusion of the Scottish section of this Bill in the wider Measure. It has been suggested that if this section had not been included there would have been further delay in meeting the claims of Scottish interests. That appears to me to be rather a lame excuse, for clearly if the right hon. Gentleman, with his influence in Cabinet circles, had cared to push the claims of Scotland, we should have had presented to the House a Bill of a purely Scottish character, and the passing of that Bill could have been expedited, just as this Bill is being expedited by the guillotine and other expedients.
I pass from that, however, because it appears to me that nothing that we can say will influence the right hon. Gentleman and his associates in their present frame of mind. Therefore I propose to devote what I have to say to the wider considerations which are embodied in this section of this Bill. I cannot speak of agriculture; that has been dealt with very ably by the hon. Baronet who has just spoken. But I confess to some perturbation of mind because of the absence of enlightenment in the provisions that are now before us. As I understand it, the purpose and intention of this Bill is to provide rating relief to industry.

The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman disapproves, but I would remind him that the Bill proposes to establish machinery, and that that machinery is the basis of rating relief. Clearly, the ultimate intention of the Government, in formulating this machinery proposal, was to provide a measure of rating relief. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman now agrees. I confess that I cannot see a large measure of rating relief being so provided, so far as industrial operations and processes in Scotland are concerned. The hon. Baronet who has just spoken referred to an expedient that might be devised by landlords when rating relief is provided for agriculture. He suggested, and I think rightly, that landlords might avail themselves of such rating relief to increase rents. I can see a likelihood of that happening so far as industry is concerned. Let me put this hypothetical case which may arise, and,
I have no doubt, has arisen in the past in Scotland. You have in Scotland a variety of small businesses. You have, for example, the owner of a factory who has leased his premises for a short period, say five years. There is paid for the premises a rent that has been fixed when the premises were first taken over. If the Government provides a measure of relief is it not clear, having regard to all the circumstances and in particular the need for obtaining suitable premises in suitable districts, that the landlord of those premises at the termination of the lease will avail himself of the measure of rating relief that has been provided for the tenant, to increase the rent?
The Secretary of State may properly say that that is a hypothetical proposition, but it is a case that may occur, and I invite him specifically to deal with it. Moreover, the purpose of the Bill is to provide rating relief for industry. I shall not enter into the very vexed and intricate question of whether relief should be provided for impoverished and prosperous industries alike. Enough has been said on that head; but I suggest that no measure of relief should be provided for landlords, since they are in no way affected. The landlord has let his premises for a fixed period of years and is assured of his rent. There is no question of any impoverishment, at all events during the period of the lease, and if the lease is renewed there can be no question of industrial depression as far as he is concerned. The Lord Advocate, in his reply, may say that the landlord is taking the risk that, owing to high rates and depressed industry, the tenant may vacate the premises at the termination of the lease. That is unlikely to happen. It may happen in a few cases, but it is hardly likely to be general. Therefore, I think we are entitled to some enlightenment in respect to these two points.
Something has been said about the machinery of this Bill not affecting rating relief in itself. That is a matter that is to come on later, but the Secretary of State will surely admit that this Bill does affect valuation and valuation processes. When I read Clause 9 now under review I am in considerable difficulty. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (5) they will see that no clear line is laid down for the use of assessors—those concerned
with assessments and valuation—as to the proper distinction that is to be drawn between the landlord on the one hand and the tenant on the other. I observe that a distinction is drawn between premises and hereditaments occupied for industrial purposes and premises occupied for transport purposes. That is a clear distinction, and I can understand it, but there is no policy laid down for the use of assessors as to the kind of distinction that is required as between tenants and landlords in respect of rating relief, and in that respect the Bill falls short of what is required.
This part of the Bill is a Bill by reference, and is not the sort of Measure that should be supported by Scottish Members. We have had quite sufficient legislation by reference. One might understand it in connection with a small Measure, small matters of social reform, but in a Measure of such importance as this, leading to other legislation and, in the opinion of the Government, embodying extraordinary reactions and repercussions, we should have had a Bill of a specific character, one that could be easily understood, with Scottish terminology, and one that would have conveyed no difficulties whatever to landlords, tenants, or assessing authorities. Lastly, I join issue with the Secretary of State in the representations that have been made by hon. Members regarding the need for a separate Scottish Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has said that no assessors have complained, no licensing authorities have complained of this Measure being included in a wider scheme. I put it to him that he has not received any representations from authorities in Scotland in support of this Bill. If he has, Scottish Members are entitled to hear of them.
On the other hand, we have received representations from responsible bodies in Scotland, from people who have a vast knowledge of rating and assessment matters, and surely their opinion is worth consideration. Representations have been made to hon. Members on this side, and presumably to hon. Members opposite, as to the general provisions of this Measure. I associate myself wholeheartedly, and I am sure other hon. Members on these benches do so as well, with the protest of the hon. Member for
Springburn (Mr. Hardie) against the inactivity of the Secretary of State in not pushing the claims of Scotland in the Cabinet. I should not care to associate myself definitely with the somewhat harsh expressions which have been used, I would rather put it in this way, that the action or inaction of the Secretary of State denotes a lack of courage. That cannot be said of Scottish Members in this House; they have the courage to put their point of view, and we suggest that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate might put the claims of Scotland more properly, more definitely, more thoroughly, and with greater courage, before their associates in the Cabinet in the future than they have in the past.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I answer some of the points which have been raised since the Secretary of State for Scotland addressed the Committee. There have been repeated referencs to the suggestion that there should be a separate Bill for Scotland. I think that proceeds from a certain misunderstanding or misapprehension as to the effect of Clause 9. In effect we are having a separate Bill for Scotland. With the exception of Clauses 1 and 2, Sub-section (1) of Clause 4, and the first two Subsections of Clause 6, the whole of the Bill applies to Scotland, plus Clause 9. I suggest that it provides a simple and effective code to produce all that is required to be produced in this Bill. It has nothing to do with the granting of relief in any shape or form, it has nothing to do with the powers of local authorities. All it does is to provide for the splitting up of heritages in the valuation roll. There is not a word which affects rating in Scotland. These are only valuation provisions.

Mr. SHINWELL: Assuming that any further measures were in contemplation, would this Measure be of any value at all?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member has not appreciated my point. I am dealing with the point of whether there should be a separate Bill for Scotland in regard to this matter or not. I am not dealing with the point of whether this Measure will require a subsequent Bill or not. The complaint as I understand it is against the fact that
the provisions affecting Scotland should be coupled with the English provisions. That is not the same as the point of whether this Bill is only rendered necessary because of other Bills which are to follow it. Unless there had been the general proposal for rating relief which will be given operative effect by the later Bills, this Bill would not be necessary. It is dealing with the valuation roll and is doing nothing more than providing separate entities there. [Interruption.] The right hon Gentleman the Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) must excuse me, but rating and valuation in Scotland are two entirely separate subjects. The assessor who makes up the valuation roll has nothing to do with rating at all. His sole duty is valuation, and the only person we are dealing with in this Bill is the valuation assessor. Rating is a separate topic and a separate branch of the law.
The provisions of Clause 9 plus the remaining provisions which are left, after giving effect to Sub-section (1) of Clause 9, form a very simple code, and my right hon. Friend has already made quite clear the reasons of urgency which render a single Bill dealing with these matters preferable to two separate Bills. There is another point of great importance. On the questions of industrial hereditaments and freight-transport hereditaments it is very important that we should have identical provisions in England and in Scotland, so that there should be no material distinction. It would have been difficult had these definitions to be discussed by the Scottish Standing Committee in their relation to Scotland, and also by the Committee of the Whole House, and it is much better that these points, in which we have a common interest as regards uniformity, should be discussed in the same Bill. I suggest that the most useful method from every point of view has been adopted in this case. I do not need to say more about delay that would have resulted from a separate Bill because we have been rather blamed for not getting on more quickly and not putting more quickly into operation the ultimate relief. I do not say anything more about that point because I do not think it is necessary.
I propose, first, to deal with what I may call the agricultural points raised
by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). The first question which he asked was why was only half of the landlords' or owners' relief to be passed on to the occupier in the case of agricultural subjects, whereas the whole is to be passed on in the case of industrial subjects? The hon. and gallant Gentleman foreshadowed my answer, namely, that it is because the landlord, according to the ordinary form of lease, is an active partner in the agricultural industry. A great many of the detailed questions as to how that relief should be dealt with, as between landlord and tenant, are more suitable for discussion when we come to proposing the actual relief itself. It; is fair, however, that I should give a general answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. One of the considerations or elements that enter into the fixing of rents by the owner is the average or probable liability for owners' rates—not in pounds, shillings and pence exactly, but taken generally as an element which must be considered.
We have taken the general view that, whereas existing leases have been concluded on a basis different from that which will obtain after the passing of such relief measures as will be proposed in the subsequent Bill, that element would cease to operate as soon as the leases come to an end and when the parties will be free to contract on the basis resulting from those measures of relief to be proposed in the next Bill. My right hon. Friend does not, of course, desire to exclude any relevant suggestions or considerations which bear on the question of what is the fair thing to do in that respect. The hon. and gallant Baronet is quite right in understanding that our object is the relief of the industry itself, through whoever it may be rendered, and we shall be anxious to see that this relief is secured in the fairest and most effective way possible. I rather demur to going into precise details at this stage as regards this Bill, and I trust the hon. and gallant Baronet will accept this statement of the principles on which we propose to proceed in this matter. He referred incidentally to the 12½ per cent. difference in standard of rent mentioned on page 12 of the White Paper.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Twenty-five per cent.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg the hon. and gallant Baronet's pardon; I meant the 25 per cent. which resulted in the £12 10s. That, of course, is a general rental question and not an agricultural rental question—which suggests the danger of utilising such figures in a discussion of this kind.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The difference in rental applies over the whole field of agriculture and industry but in both cases, whereas the tenant pays the whole of the rates in England, the landlord pays half in Scotland, which inevitably has the effect of raising rents by 25 per cent.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not agree with that at all. The hon. and gallant Baronet seems to be taking an average which is applicable to a much larger area, and applying it to a part, and that is a very dangerous thing to do.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the difference in rental not to balance the absence of what would exist if the owners paid the rates?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I agree that that is probably an element in the matter. You cannot say specifically, but there are undoubtedly other elements.

Mr. HARDIE: On the question of the five-year valuations, what is to happen in between those valuations?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member is mistaken. These valuations will be every year in Scotland. There is no provision for five-year valuations as regards Scotland in this Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it the case that the payment will be on the valuation of the year in which the five years' payment has accrued? Is it right to say that what comes in between the five-year periods has to stand over?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not quite follow that point. Of course, payment will be made to the actual tenant at the time when the relief is made.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to reply to my question about the half of the relief, the rate relief, to the landlord. Could he not give me a general
reply—I do not want to press him at this stage for a detailed reply—on the point which I raised as to the remaining part of the relief being passed to the tenant only during existing tenancies? I would like to remind him that these points were dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his speech on this Bill on 7th June.

The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend dealt with them in the same general way as I have. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) seemed to have some difficulty about the absence of Scottish terminology from the Bill, but I do not understand what particular Scottish phrase or dialect he thinks is missing from the Bill.

Mr. SHINWELL: I would point out that the first and second Sub-sections—and there are others—contain references to the main Bill and speak of hereditaments, and generally contain legislation by reference. That is what I meant, that there were such terms in a purely Scottish Measure.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I thought Sub-section (2) made it quite clear. We there substitute for any reference to hereditaments a reference to lands and heritages. Is that a very difficult substitution?

Mr. SHINWELL: If it is not so very difficult, can the Lord Advocate tell the Committee why it was that a separate Bill was not presented? Surely, if this contains all that is required, with the exception of these deep references to other parts of the wider Bill, he might have presented to us a separate Measure, which we could have dealt with as ex-peditiously as we are dealing with this Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE: No; we could neither have dealt with it as ex-peditiously, nor could we have got the identical definition for industrial hereditaments and for freight-transport hereditaments, which is essential if you are going to have unity of administration or similar administration of the relief in the two countries. The hon. Member for Linlithgow suggested that there was an absence of any direction to the assessor, I think he said, to make the necessary distinctions between the landlord and the tenant as to the
measures of relief, and he referred to Sub-section (5) of Clause 9 as illustrating the point. The answer is that, first of all, that relief would be a rating relief, and that the assessor has nothing to do with rating at all. He is not the person to administer it in any shape or form. He deals only with valuation, and therefore this is not the place for any such thing.

Mr. SHINWELL: It is the basis.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The valuation basis.

Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, and it is on the valuation basis that the relief is granted.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Surely it is obvious. What is in the hon. Member's mind is, for instance, a landlord who has to pass on half of his relief to the tenant, but the valuation assessor has nothing to do with that. That cannot appear on the valuation rolls, which is all that we are dealing with here, and what is the use of giving directions to a man who cannot give any effect to them?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This Bill is called a Rating and Valuation Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I quite agree, because in England there is not the same distinction as we have in Scotland.

Mr. SHINWELL: That is the whole case.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the reason why Scotland is excluded from the operation of Clause 1, because in Scotland we have already a complete and separate valuation system.

Mr. SCRYMGEOWR: Is it not the case that the local authority is the appeal court for the valuation, and determines how much is to be the valuation?

The LORD ADVOCATE: There is an assessment committee formed by each local authority, to which the parties can appeal in the first instance from the assessor on any question of valuation. The hon. Member is quite correct, but that again, I say, has nothing to do with rating. It is true that the value in the valuation roll and the description of the subject are the basis of rating, but rating in Scotland is quite a separate topic. The right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson)
raised certain points with which I should like to deal. First of all, he said that Clause 9 could not be applied to Scottish conditions. I cannot see why it cannot be applied quite easily, and the assessors themselves see no difficulty in applying it. He first of all referred to the question of unemployment in Scotland, which, of course, we all deplore, but that is all the more reason for hurrying on with this Bill, so that we may get to the other Bills. [Interruption.] We must get on with this Bill first. The right hon. Gentleman gave certain illustrations of unfairness, and I do not know how far I should go into them, but as they were given, I should like to say a word about them. He took first the case of agriculture, and he said the landlords' relief would be £800,000 as against the tenants' £200,000; but if the landlords are to hand over half, the result will be that the tenants' relief will be £600,000 and the landlords' relief £400,000. Then take mining. There, again, they are industrial hereditaments, and the mineowner would be under the obligation to hand over the whole of the relief to his lessees.

Mr. SHINWELL: That is the wrong term. "Hereditaments" is not in the Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member has only to apply Sub-section (2) of Clause 9, and he is quite at home with it at once.

Mr. SHINWELL: Why preserve the term "hereditament"?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is quite familiar in many Acts which apply to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to that question of the 25 per cent., which I have dealt with in answer to the hon. Baronet. I think that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised, and I would submit that this Clause is really the most practical way of dealing with what, after all, as regards this stage, is not a very big matter. It is the basis, I agree, of very important changes; but the change in the machinery with regard to the valuation rolls will neither be so difficult nor so very extensive as regards alterations—there will be many alterations, of course, but as regards the nature of the alterations—as many hon. Members appear to suggest.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is idle for the Lord Advocate to pretend that this Bill is simply a valuation Bill. The title of the Bill is Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland, although not a lawyer, had a keener appreciation of the essential facts than the Lord Advocate seems to have, because he was at some pains on 7th June to declare that this Bill is a necessary part in the evolution of the Government's scheme. It is idle for the Lord Advocate, or any other lawyer, to pretend that you can isolate this Bill, and declare that you must only discuss this Bill under the few legal terms which are in it. In having regard to this Bill, we must consider the other Bills to which it has immediate relationship, and it is idle for the Lord Advocate to pretend that it is a mere matter of a few legal terms, and that the Bill stands isolated. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) drew attention to the fact that there was no demand for this business at all. I asked the right hon. Gentleman yesterday how many local authorities in Scotland had ever petitioned the Scottish Office in order to secure what is the ultimate result of this Bill, that is, the enlargement of areas to such an extent as will mean the destruction of local government in Scotland. He said that there was not one. If that be so, all this scheme, of which this Bill and Clause 9 is a necessary and essential part, has emanated from a Government Department, from a permanent official, from the bureaucracy, of which the right hon. Gentleman is always crediting us on these Benches with being the friends. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) went at length into the effect that the proposal will have on agriculture and landlordism in Scotland, and the Lord Advocate never attempted to answer his facts. He never attempted to dispute his essential proposition, that this Bill will in some places mean an increase in land rents and in the profits that are taken by the owners of the soil in Scotland.
I should like to put before the Secretary of State for Scotland one illustration of how Scotland, in an agricultural sense, differs materially from England, and therefore ought to have been considered in a separate Bill. In Scotland, in the majority of cases, agricultural land and
buildings are valued as a unit. In England, they are not valued at a unit; land is valued separately from the farmhouse, the cottages and so on. What will happen in Scotland is clearly this. The tenant, that is the farmer, before the passing of this Bill, has already relief in respect of his local rates. Under the Government's proposals, the owner is to be relieved of his local rates. At present, the farmer pays 75 per cent. and the owner 25 per cent. Under the proposals, the landowner is to get relief, provided that he hands back one half of the relief which he gets to the farmers The farmer having already been relieved entirely of his rates will now have a dividend on the business. So far from paying any local rates, he is to receive a subsidy. It is to be of a temporary nature; the Government admit that, because it is only to be for the duration of existing leases. When the existing leases expire, the entire amount of rate relief which the landlord receives will be retained by him, and will no longer be passed to the tenant. On any consideration of the law of rent, on any consideration whatever of the historical economic facts with which our country has been faced for hundreds of years, I see no escape whatever from this conclusion, that, so far as agriculture is concerned, what the Government are doing by their present scheme is to make a present, to give a subsidy or subvention to landlords in Scotland. So far as I can see, that is not freeing industry from the burdens of taxation. It is in no wise assisting agriculture, and, unless the Government are prepared to do as a previous Government did under the Corn Production Act and prevent the raising of rents, then obviously whatever is given to the farming class as a subsidy or subvention will ultimately fall into the pockets of the landlord class.
I pass from that to say a word about another class of fortunate beneficiaries about whom nothing has been said in the course of all the discussions since this Bill and cognate Measures have been before the House. Is it conceivable that the people of Scotland would tolerate a proposal to give mineral royalty-owners a subvention at the expense of poor tenants, shopkeepers and hundreds of thousands of other people? Let me draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to what this is going to
mean in the Glasgow area. Is he aware that in the City of Glasgow an owner of mineral royalties is already allowed a deduction of 47½ per cent.? Supposing an owner of mineral royalties has an annual income of £100 from them. He receives a deduction of 47½ per cent. on that £100 before he is subjected to rating. If this scheme of the Government goes through, he is not to be rated on £100, not even to be rated on £52 10s., but only to be rated on £15 10s. Who is going to relieve these fortunate owners of mineral royalties? Hundreds of thousands of poor tenants in Glasgow. I have the official figures here. The gross valuation of Glasgow amounts to £11,500,000. Properties representing only £2,705,000 of that sum will obtain any of this relief; the remaining £8,500,000 will not be relieved to the extent of a penny piece under the Government's proposal. Tenants of house property, shopkeepers, and so on, are not to receive a penny piece of the subvention, but they will be amongst those who are to find the money with which we are reducing the rates paid by the owners of mineral royalties. I am perfectly certain that when the people of Scotland understand who the actual beneficiaries are to be the Secretary of State will find that not only are there no local authorities petitioning in favour of the scheme but that every local authority and every citizen who knows what is going forward will be protesting against at least some of the proposals in this Bill.
9.0 p.m.
Before we pass from this Clause I wish to draw attention to a certain aspect of affairs of which I have had personal experience. I know that there are permanent officials in the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland, as in Whitehall, who have worked for years to get local government as we understand it scrapped in favour of the creation of big areas. They have succeeded with education, the county being now the area for education purposes. The larger area has meant no increase in efficiency; whatever changes for the better have taken place in education could quite well have been achieved without increasing the area, and were not achieved as the result of enlarging the area. You have destroyed democratic control of education as you are destroying burghal government. I
know that a good case may be put up, and indeed this was proposed by the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission, for a commission to go about the country to delimit fresh areas as a sequel to the industrial developments of the past quarter of a century. But behind this proposal, and as an inevitable result, we have the destruction of democratic government. Our affairs will be handed over to county councils, making it impossible, as it is already impossible in certain counties, to have working class representation. What a farce it is to talk about democratic control for Argyllshire or for Inverness-shire, when it takes three or four days for representatives from the outlying districts to get to the meeting of the Council and to return home. It is a week's journey to attend a day's meeting. In the county in which I live, and I live in the eastern part of Dumbartonshire, it is 3½ hours' railway journey to get to the meeting of the county council in Dumbarton town and 3½ hours' journey back, and working class and democratic representation, so far as county council areas are concerned, has long ago disappeared.
Under this grandiose scheme of the Government we are going to have the destruction of working class representation. This is a sequel to the Trade Unions Bill. After the attempted destruction of organised working class representation in national affairs, difficulties are to be placed in the way of working class representation in local government. I see this scheme as a whole. I have prophesied for years that this was coming. I see housing being taken away from democratic control, health being taken away, direct contact with the poor being taken away; and, the place of the present system of local government, bureaucrats, officials, dominated, ordered and appointed by the county gentry and the richer classes in the community. Because I see all this I propose to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friends against the application of this Bill to Scotland. We in Scotland ought to have our share of whatever money is to be raised nationally for this purpose, but this is not the way in which we ought to get it. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State wants a suggestion I think we ought to
get our share in the form of relieving depressed areas of the burden of maintaining the able-bodied poor.
The Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission recommended a long time ago that we should have the cost of maintaining the main roads taken off our local charges. These things are national concerns and ought to be paid for out of national funds. The Bill we are discussing is only part of a big scheme. That scheme will give certain classes temporary monetary relief and it will give permanent monetary relief to other classes. This in the long run will be a dear day for Scotland, because it will destroy local government control in many areas, and a large sum of public money will be handed over without safeguards and will find its way into the pockets of the landlord class.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The more I listen to this Debate the more clearly does it emerge that we ought to have had a separate Bill for Scotland. I think we ought to emphasise that fact, the reason being the essential difference between the rating system in Scotland and in England. It is perfectly impossible, if you are going to alter the rating system in Scotland, to alter it in a Clause in an English Bill which deals mainly with the English system. I would like to refer to the question of agriculture. I am sure that all those who were in the. House when the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) made his speech were delighted to hear the admirable way in which he put the position. Is it realised that we are going to give a capitalised value of over £15,000,000 to the landowners of Scotland? I do not think it has been realised in this country that the taxpayers of Great Britain are going to subscribe this handsome present to the Scottish landlords. It is true that £770,000 per annum which is going to the landowners has to be returned to the tenant farmers during the existence of the present tenancies. But if you capitalise £770,000 at 20 years' purchase you get £15,000,000, and you cannot get away from the fact that if you take the burden off the land to that extent you add to the value of the land.
I ought to point out that this Measure is only the basis of a larger scheme which proposes to give relief to agriculture as well as to other depressed industries, but
surely there are more simple, reasonable and fairer methods than that of making this enormous present to the landowners. When the present tenancies run out, the landlords can put the whole of the amount contributed by the taxpayers of Great Britain into their pockets, and not one penny of that sum will go for the benefit of agriculture. If the country is going to be subjected to a heavy taxation in order to relieve depressed agriculture, surely we can devise a better method than the one which is proposed in this Bill. The sum going to the relief of tenants under the provisions of this Bill is £110,000 a year, while the sum going to the landlords is £770,000 a year. I know the term "landowners" includes a certain number of owner-occupiers, but they are only a small proportion, amounting to about 28 per cent. The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness suggested that the good landlord would put a good deal of that money into the farming business. That is what we all hope will be the case, but we have no guarantee that that will happen, and I think from our past experience we are justified in saying that a great deal of that money will not go back into the farming business, but will pass into the pockets of the landlords without being of any benefit to agriculture. I am willing to support any Measure which will really give relief to agriculture, but I am doubtful whether this Measure will effect that object.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be widening the scope of the discussion too far. These matters cannot be entirely ruled out, but they must be related to matter included in this Bill; so far he seems to have devoted the whole of his speech to matters outside the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You, Mr. Herbert, have not been in the Chair all night and these matters have been constantly referred to. The questions which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) have been referred to in this Debate by the Lord Advocate and at least by two hon. Members on the opposite benches and by a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition bench. All those speakers have referred to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and for hours I have been listening to every word in
this Debate. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland judged by all past standards is certainly in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member has said is no particular reason why I should not call the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) to order, and the hon. Member for the Orkney and Shetland Division can take care of himself if he thinks I am treating him unfairly. I have been particularly careful to allow the greatest latitude and told the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that I could allow a discussion on these subjects up to a certain point; but I felt it my duty to remind the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that he must make his remarks relevant to matters dealt with in this Bill.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: May I point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that on the Second Reading Mr. Speaker allowed the discussion on this Bill to include the points to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) has just been referring. The Secretary of State for Scotland agreed that such matters as the proportions of relief which would be passed on and so forth should be discussed and the right hon. Gentleman covered exactly the same ground with which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland has been dealing.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want to shut out discussion, but I think that what has just been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) is, perhaps, all the more reason why these matters, which were discussed on the Second Reading, should not be discussed again now.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I will, of course, endeavour to abide by your ruling, but perhaps I may be allowed to remark that this again emphasises how much more desirable it would have been that we should have had a Scottish Bill, on which we could have had a Second Reading Debate and which could have been discussed in the Scottish Standing Committee. I will endeavour to confine the few remarks I have to make within the ambit of this particular Bill, and, in doing so, I should like again to refer to the Title of the Bill, which is:
To make provision with a view to the grant of relief from rates in respect of certain classes of hereditaments.
The remarks that I have made so far I have endeavoured to direct to that particular aspect of the Bill which makes divisions as regards certain classes of hereditaments with a view to the grant of relief, namely, agricultural hereditaments, or, possibly, I should say "lands and heritages," for that is what we should call them under this Clause.
When we are considering this Bill, which deals with lands and heritages, and having in our minds what is to follow after this Bill, I think it would be impossible, and, indeed, improper for us to pass by without considering what will be the ultimate results of the superstructure which is going to be built on the foundation of this Bill itself. I would only remind the Committee once more that on this foundation is going to be built a superstructure which we think is going to be a very shaky one, because the foundation is bad. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is going to have a very serious effect on agriculture in Scotland if relief is given in such a way as to interfere with security of tenure. All who are interested in agriculture realise that security of tenure must be the absolute basis of the industry, and anything that is done to interfere with that basis is bad for the industry as a whole. I regret that I was not in the House when the Lord Advocate replied to my hon. Friend, but I am informed that he gave the Committee to understand that the Government have no proposal ready, but that they will be ready to consider what' my hon. Friend said. If the Government have a proposal ready, will they tell us what proposal they have to prevent the whole of this money from going into the pockets of the landowners? If they have a proposal ready, I should be only too glad to hear it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to support the Amendment, and desire to give one or two reasons why I think it should be carried. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) both stated that, while they had a large measure of sympathy with the Amendment, they could not see their way to
vote for it. I was most interested by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness, who described this Clause in stronger language than has been used by any hon. Member on this side. He called it foolish, stupid, and wasteful, but, nevertheless, he says that he is not going to vote against it. I have never heard such a serious indictment of a Clause as he made, and yet, when he is asked what he is going to do on this stupid, foolish, wasteful Clause, he says that he is going to do nothing. I cannot follow his reasons for saying that. He says that it is going to bring a certain amount of relief, and that he wants the Bill to apply to Scotland, but, even if something unforeseen were to happen and our Amendment were to be carried, he knows very well what the result would be. He knows that, when we move to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland by £100, we do not mean that we actually want to reduce his salary. What we mean is that that is the only Parliamentary method of expressing disapproval of the action of the Government. Similarly, in moving this Amendment, what we are seeking to do is to follow the only Parliamentary method of expressing in the Division Lobby our disapproval of the action of the Government. If we carried our Amendment, it would simply mean—and the right hon. Gentleman knows this—that the Government, a vote of censure having been passed upon them, would have to do one of two things; they would either have to resign or to bring in a separate Bill relating to Scotland.
If I may say so, I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). He dealt with larger authorities. I am not going to deal with larger authorities. I have a very open mind on that question, and I neither condemn nor support larger authorities. I see tremendous reasons against them, but at the same time I see strong reasons for them, and I am not going to commit myself one way or the other at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman, however, ought to submit definite reasons why this Clause should apply to Scotland, and he has never done that. The Lord Advocate made some sort of attempt, but he never proved to us conclusively that a Bill applying to Scotland
could not be introduced. The only argument against doing so was lack of Parliamentary time, but what time of any considerable amount would have been taken up if a Bill for Scotland had been introduced and sent to the Scottish Standing Committee? Hardly a day of real Parliamentary time would have been taken up. The Bill would have been examined in detail by men who knew Scottish affairs and Scottish interests, largely with the aid and advice of Scottish local authorities. The assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), as to the effect on Scottish local authorities, has been disputed by some hon. Members. They may be right or they may be wrong, but the point is that ordinary Members of the House do not know who is right. If, however, we had met in the Scottish Standing Committee, we should have had there a much better chance of getting the advice, assistance and co-operation of the local authorities than we have here to-night. I do not take much note of whether public opinion is for or against this Bill. My own view is that public opinion does not care whether it is passed or not. I suppose I am as active in my constituency as most Members, and I have never been asked a question about it by anyone; and I should say that, if the truth were told, that would be the experience of a great number of other Members.
I have never heard a note of public opinion either for or against the Bill. I had not even discovered the Convention of Royal Burghs. Apart from public opinion being for or against it, and apart from letters from the Convention of Royal Burghs, what the Secretary for Scotland has got to do is to make his case to us. He has never made a case that he can justify as to why he could not have introduced a separate Scottish Bill, and get it through without any loss of Parliamentary time. That is what he has got to justify, and what he has not done so far. There is every reason why we in Scotland ought to have had a Bill. For good or ill, around the Scottish rating and valuation system there has grown up a whole legacy through countless years in the past, of special Scottish action and work. I have heard the Lord Advocate speaking in the Law Courts many times, but I have never heard him speak from a more opposite
side than to-night. Had the Lord Advocate had freedom, he would have preferred a separate Scottish Bill, and anybody who listened to his speech knew that he would much sooner have had a separate Bill. Had the Conservative Members been free, would they not have preferred that course to the course which has been taken?
This Amendment says that the Bill shall not apply to Scotland. What is the great reason why it should? I have listened to hear a reason why it should. It is true that this Bill is going to give £800,000 ultimately, though not at once, to Scottish landlords. It is quite true that in existing circumstances 50 per cent. is to he handed back to the lessees. Ultimately, be it 10 or 15 years, this Bill seeks to endow Scottish landlordism to the extent of £800,000. Why should we have a Bill for Scotland for that purpose? Will that mean that a single person, outside the landlords, will be rendered better than before the passing of the Act? After all, the purpose of legislation in this House ought to be to bring the greatest good to the greatest number. How can a grant of, roughly speaking, anything up to £800,000 to Scottish landlordism, make Scotland a happier or better country than it was before? I say this Clause should not apply to Scotland, because it will not make the lot of the, great mass of Scottish people one whit better than it was before. It is said that some tenant farmers will get the benefit. What is the case even for them? I have always understood that when people were asking for money from the Government they must first prove that they needed the money. People ask for grants for education and unemployment and in each case they are asked to prove first and foremost the need for the grant. I ask the supporters of the Clause to prove to me what need there is for this Clause to apply to Scotland. Are any of the persons who are going to get the money in social need of it? I could prove that the very people who are not to get a penny in Scotland are the only people who need the money. The Scottish miners are in sheer desperation through lack of food. The social clamour is tremendous for it, but they are not to get a penny. The farmers—and I am not saying that they are not a class of the community which is deserving
in some respect—have no social need for the money, for they are nothing like so hard pressed as the Scottish miners. These other people are by no stretch of the imagination as poor as my constituents. Yet they are to walk away with Government money, and the poor people are to be refused any direct Government aid at all.
Therefore, I say that the Secretary of State for Scotland has to justify this Clause applying to Scotland, and he has not done it. How is the Clause going to make a tangible improvement in the life of the Scottish people? His argument is that the Bill for England gives certain benefits, and therefore certain benefits will follow for Scotland. He has got to prove that this Clause, apart from the English Bill, will mean a desirable improvement in Scotland and he has not proved that so far to-night. Neither has the Lord Advocate. Where is any improvement going to come to the shale-mining industry? Take the landlords who are to get the benefit. Are they poor people? I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to prove only one proposition, and that is that this Clause will mean for the Scottish people a better state of affairs than has hitherto existed. All that has been claimed for the Clause is that there is something happening in England, and the same thing ought to happen in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member for Springburn will press this to a Division, so that the country will know that this Government have been, as they always have been, the friends of the landlord, and that to-day we are asked again to grant large sums of money to people who have done nothing to deserve it. I hope at least the minority in the Committee will do their best to carry this thing to the electors outside.

Mr. E. BROWN: With regard to the Amendment itself, that the Clause should not apply to Scotland, there will be two opinions on this side. Members on this side will not find it quite so easy to have such a simple and straightforward view as that of the hon. Member who has just spoken. In regard to the main reasons advanced in favour of the Amendment, there will be unanimity on this side that there ought to have been a separate Bill for Scotland. I think that is patent, both on the surface of the Clause, and in
the argument of the Lord Advocate, and for two reasons. First of all the Clause itself begins by admitting through its omissions that there are certain things in the English part of the Bill that cannot be expressed in Scottish terms, and that you cannot apply certain parts of the English Clause in Scottish terms, so that we may know how the two things run together.
Secondly, because the Lord Advocate himself talked about the Scottish Clause being simply valuation and not rating. That appeared to me to be the strongest argument in favour of the Amendment in so far as it is based on a desire for a Scottish Measure separate from the other. But I cannot quite agree with the Lord Advocate that it is not altogether a rating Measure, because in making the assessment for the valuation roll, deciding how you will apportion certain heritages in one way or another, you are really affecting rating, and that is shown by an Amendment later on the Order Paper in the name of two hon. Members on the other side of the House who wish to include in the apportionment things not at present included in Clause 9, for the very good reason that if they desire to do certain things by way of apportionment, in order that when the succeeding Measure comes a greater or less measure of relief may apply to certain kinds of agricultural properties, they are bound to get certain Amendments made that are not now contemplated in the Clause as drafted. That is why this Clause begins by omitting definitions which apply in England and Wales from the drafting of the purely Scottish Clause 9.
I wish to go a little further. I should like some guidance about this, as representing a Scottish industrial seat. Very little has been said about the application of this valuation to industrial Scotland, which, after all, contains the largest proportion of the Scottish population. The Lord Advocate seems to think Clause 9 as drafted applies the English part of the Bill to Scotland and that there is no need for discrimination. I am by no means so sure. In England and Wales the law affecting rating as between landlord and tenant is very different from that in Scotland, and that is not merely true with regard to agricultural law but it is true also with regard
to the law of town property. Does the Scottish Office know what proportion of the industrial heritages, the freight-transport heritages referred to in this Clause, is in the hands of tenants owning the properties and what in the hands of tenants occupying properties owned by other persons? It seems to me to have a very important bearing on the separation of the valuation.
The whole intention of this discrimination in the valuation, both in Scotland, England and Wales, is that certain measures to follow on this basis of assessment are to provide a stimulus for productive industry. I understand we do not use the beautiful old biblical and Scottish legal term "heritage" in regard to this kind of valuation. We have to use the English word "hereditament." Supposing a factory or a shipyard in Scotland is operated by a tenant but owned by someone else. What proportion of the relief given by way of the alteration of the assessment will go to productive industry and what part to the owner of the shipyard or factory or freight transport property when this apportionment is made on the basis of the new assessment? Has the Secretary of State any information?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I will answer that straight away. Anything that is done by splitting up the valuation roll will not affect the proportion. It is just because of that that I have already said this is a valuation measure and not a rating measure. Take a factory, A, we will say, 100 square yards, which is owned by B and let to C. It may be, if it is a factory and nothing else, that no apportionment will be necessary, because the subject is already a separate subject. If a portion of the subject of the lease requires to be carved off into two or more separate entities you will still have the occupiers and owners the same persons in each of these entries. There is no change.

Mr. BROWN: I put a question to the Secretary of State on 30th April as to the estimated yield on the basis of the present valuation in Scotland of certain classes of property, and I was informed that houses and shops were estimated, in 1927–28, on the basis of the present valuation, to yield £14,302,000, agricultural land was reckoned to yield £1,498,000, gas undertakings £544,000,
water undertakings £434,000, electricity undertakings £340,000, tramway undertakings £269,000, cemetery undertakings £18,000, sewerage undertakings £68,000, railway undertakings £620,000, docks and harbours £241,000, mines and minerals £449,000, iron and steel works £94,000, blast furnaces £53,000, mills and manufactories £1,995,000, and other properties £675,000. The doubt in my mind is this. Those who sit for English and Welsh seats are at a great advantage in arguing what will be the probable effect of this apportionment over their Scottish colleagues. In answer to questions put and inquiries made, the Minister of Health laid papers which show every single English and Welsh Member precisely what the yield of these classes of property will be in his own area, and it is for that reason that, by applying the figures given in the White Paper, to which you, Sir, referred just now, to the calculations then given to the English and Welsh Members, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) yesterday was able in such a dexterous manner to keep insides the rules of order. We have no such figures.
I put a question asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he would present such a Paper. He said he would not give it in that form, but he certainly led me to understand that we should get a Paper—I have been every day to the Vote Office to ask for it—showing us for each area what the various kinds of property yielded. Estimates have been made as to what will happen as the result of this re-apportionment. Are the estimates based on these totals, because if they are, surely parts of these rates are paid by the landlords of the property and parts by the occupiers. That is not so in England and Wales. In England and Wales the tenant and not the owner of the property pays the rates. The point I wish to have made clear concerning the effect of the application of the industrial part of the English Bill in this Clause is, is the calculation as to the apportionment based on the payments of industrialists or on the payments by way of rates of industrialists and owners of industrial properties? That is the point I wish to have made clear, and I hope it will be made clear before the Debate comes to an end.
A word about the Clause itself. It is perfectly true that this particular principle could have been applied to Scotland in a separate Bill. I think the Committee is entitled to a statement not merely as to the effect of the valuation in agricultural Scotland but as to the effect of the policy and apportionment in Clause 9 as applied to industrial and freight-carrying Scotland. As I understand it the core of Clause 9 is in Subsection (4), which applies to Scotland the three definitions of agricultural, industrial and freight-transport lands and heritages, and that new assessment is to be the basis for the calculation of relief which is to come in the next Bill. It seems to me that by leaving out the earlier Clauses of the Bill in relation to Scotland the Government admit that there is a separate case for Scotland, and there ought to have been a Bill.
I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) before I sit down. The reason we do not find it as easy as he does to dismiss the Amendment as merely a Parliamentary expression may be stated in terms of mines and minerals. Supppoe that a choice had to be made as to whether or not mines and minerals should be excluded from the valuation role, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) would have been found saying that mines and minerals should not receive their share of relief which is to be apportioned on the basis of the new valuation. I think there would only be one answer to that. We cannot find it as easy to be lighthearted as the hon. Member for Gorbals, while we agree entirely that there ought to have been a separate Bill dealing with the Scottish system.

Mr. WRIGHT: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). No Member from the County of Lanarkshire, as far as I know, has taken part in this Debate, and I therefore feel it my duty to make a contribution. There is some dispute to-night as to whether this is a rating Bill or not, although the Lord Advocate has assured us that it is not. But the Debate has proceeded from the beginning, and has been allowed by the Chairman, on the basis that it is. The Lord Advocate has replied to a number
of points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) on those grounds. It seems to me that there is a very considerable amount of alarm, particularly from the local authorities in the industrial areas of Scotland as to what is going to happen at no very distant date. As the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has observed, we are gradually losing all local control and all local management over purely Scottish affairs in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland has, I understand, admitted that no appeal has been made to him by any representative body in Scotland on behalf of this Bill. But I understand also that he has received very important communications from the local authorities with regard to this question of the burden of the rates in relation to the problem of unemployment.
Speaking as the representative of a constituency in Lanarkshire, a meeting was held recently in Glasgow representing all the important industrial areas in Lanarkshire. A copy of the proceedings was sent to the right hon. Gentleman from Hamilton on 30th June making a very strong appeal upon these very questions. It concerned all the important industrial areas, some of which are in a very grave state of destitution. In some particular cases men are actually in danger of dying of starvation. I have sent some instances of these conditions to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am bound to confess that a feeling of despair is spreading over the administrators of local government in Scotland with regard to the appalling conditions. They are hoping for some relief from this burden of the rates which affects these great industrial areas. We are drifting from bad to worse, and many people who are not working, but are receiving a very small amount of wages, are being compelled to meet this heavy burden of the rates. It is impossible for these conditions to prevail for very much longer. Therefore, I make a very earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the members of the Cabinet to take this question into their very serious consideration without any further delay.
I want to stress this particular point. It has been stated, and not contradicted, that certain beneficiaries will gain very considerably as the result of this Bill. It seems to me that the landlords and the landowners are being offered very alarming sums of money, that this money is to go to those who have no special claims and whose needs are not nearly as great as the needs of other sections of the community. We are here representing great industrial areas, about which little has been said in this Debate this evening. I hope the Amendment will be, carried, because I am quite sure that what I am saying with regard to the dismay which exists in all these great industrial areas is very real. I am appealing, as their representative to-night, that their petition to the right hon. Gentleman shall not be ignored or turned down, and that he will endeavour to do something in order to benefit the great bulk of the people in Scotland who are suffering under the horrible conditions which prevail industrially.

Mr. R. MITCHELL: I do not want to take part in the discussion upon this Clause, but I am very anxious to have my mind cleared of some doubts. In the first place, Clause 9 in this Bill referring to Scotland is a bad example of legislation by reference, but this is only a preliminary Bill to a much more important Measure which is to be laid before the House. It is a sort of preliminary canter, and what I am anxious to know, first of all, from the right hon. Gentleman is, as he has issued two memoranda, one regarding England and Wales, and one regarding Scotland, does he propose in laying the Measure before the House to do it in the form of two Bills, one applying to England and Wales and the other applying to Scotland? I cannot contemplate a proposition such as is contemplated by this Measure being laid before the House in which by reference only Scotland can be treated properly. The Bill goes right down to the roots of the Scottish system of rating. It will involve a completely new outlook. It will to a large extent affect every burgh and county in Scotland, certainly for a period of five years. If the Bill is to alter not only the machinery but the principle of the law of rating in Scotland, I suggest that it should be done in a Scottish Bill and that the House should have the
opportunity of discussing the new proposals as they affect Scotland, not tacked on to an English Bill, but in a definite Bill, which can be either discussed in Committee of the whole House, or before the Scottish Standing Committee.
The second point—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I am going, perhaps, a little bit ahead of what is contained in the Bill—is that I should like to ask whether the next proposal, of which this Bill is the preliminary, is going to do anything to give to the manufacturer in Scotland the full benefit of the relief which the manufacturer will receive in England?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can answer that question. The hon. Member appears to be making some inquiry as to a future Bill.

Mr. MITCHELL: With great deference, I am asking whether the Preamble of the Bill, which states that this is
A Bill to make provision, with a view to the grant of relief from rates,
is to apply in Scotland as it applies in England. The purpose of this Bill and of the future Bill to be introduced is that there may be given an impetus to manufacture, to production. In England where a reduction of rates is given to a factory, the producer, the manufacturer, the occupier of the factory will receive the whole benefit, but in Scotland the position is quite different. We have in Scotland a great many cases of yearly lets. We have a great many cases of factories let on short leases, and we have a still greater number of cases in which the proprietor of the building lets the ground floor for a shop and the upper storeys for a factory. According to the White Paper and according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole purpose of these Bills is to give the whole benefit of the relief to the persons who are engaged in productive industry. Take the instances which I have mentioned. In regard to the yearly let, there is nothing in any statement that has yet been made to prevent the proprietor taking the whole benefit of the relief of rates by increasing the rent, and in any event, unless we can have an assurance that in the new Bill that will be guarded against, the producer, who if he were in England would
get the benefit of the whole of the rate relief, will not get the benefit of the whole of the rate relief in Scotland, but the proprietor will get the benefit of his rate relief.
10.0 p.m.
There is no encouragement to industry by relieving of rates the proprietor of premises which are let to a producer. The only encouragement which can come to industry will be if the producer is to receive the benefit of the relief in Scotland, as he does in England. In the event of short lets, until the short lease expires during the period of the lease, unless we have an assurance to the contrary, the proprietor of the business place in which production is carried on is going to be relieved of three-fourths of his rates. If that is not to be deducted from the payment made by the occupant, the real producer, this relief of rates which has been promised to the producer is not going to the producer at all; it is going to the landlord. In the third instance which I have quoted, which is personally known to me, the owner of premises in Argyll Street in Glasgow lets the ground floor as a shop and the upper storey as a factory. The occupant of the shop is to receive no relief from rates. The proprietor of the shop, as proprietor of the shop, will receive no relief from rates, but directly we go upstairs, because the upper part is used as a factory, the proprietor is to be relieved, as far as I can see, of three-fourths of the rates which he has to pay, and he will get that relief not for anything that he has done or is likely to do to aid production, but because, by chance, the upper storeys happen to be let to a person who is engaged in a productive industry.
I am not going to say whether that is good or bad, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is in the contemplation of the Government, and if not whether he will use his powerful influence to bring it to the contemplation of the Government, that in the Clauses which are contained in the Bill affecting Scotland, provision will be made that the actual producer in Scotland shall receive the benefit of rate relief which his brother in England receives, and that we in Scotland are not going to be put in the position of having a so-called rate relief for the benefit of
industry, being used not to benefit industry but to benefit the owner of property which is used for industrial purposes. I hope that I have made myself clear. These are questions which I have taken the opportunity of bringing forward on this Amendment because this Clause making this Bill applicable to Scotland is the preamble, the forerunner, of another Bill, infinitely more important, and one in which, unless the greatest care is exercised—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will do that—we may find ourselves having the industrialists of Scotland very much prejudiced compared with the industrialists of England because of the different basis, the different principles and the different machinery which we have in Scotland for valuation and rating purposes.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will answer the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) first. The hon. Member, like other hon. Members, has complained that Scotland has not a separate Bill and he asks me whether when we come to the next stage after this Bill it is the intention of the Government to introduce a separate Bill for Scotland, on the same lines that we have introduced a separate White Paper. I may say at once that it certainly is the intention of the Government to introduce the next stage in a separate Bill for Scotland. That, I think, is the best method of dealing with it. Of course at this stage it would be out of order for me to go into details of what will be in that Bill, but the Committee may take it from me that the intention of the Government is to relieve productive industry, and that the Bill will provide as nearly as is humanly possible the same relief in Scotland as in England. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) reiterated the statement that no demand had been made from Scotland for any change such as that for which this is the machinery. The County Councils Association have for a long period been advancing proposals for dealing with these very problems. These authorities are seized of the necessity for certain fundamental changes, some of them even more drastic than those with which we are dealing in this Bill or with which we shall deal in the later Bill. In addition to that, one if not two Royal Commissions, some of them including
hon. Members of the Labour party, have advised that these changes should be made.

Mr. JOHNSTON: What Royal Commission?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Poor Law Commission.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, while advocating the break-up of the Poor Law, recommended that the functions now undertaken by parish councils in Scotland should be split up amongst existing authorities'—municipal authorities for the Poor Law and the education authorities for the child, and so on—and that what the Government are proposing to do is not to break up the Poor Law and to distribute the functions of parish councils amongst existing authorities, but to widen the area of the Poor Law and to render it free from any possibility of democratic control?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see the relevance to the Clause under discussion either of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman or what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston).

Sir J. GILMOUR: It was only in answer to what had been said that I drew attention to the matter, but I shall not pursue the subject. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) drew my attention to a return which had been promised but was not yet available. I regret very much the delay that has been caused. I have tried to expedite the production of these figures. I realise that it is very unfortunate that we have not been able to get the return from the printers, and I am doing what I can to expedite it, for I am not satisfied that all expedition has been made in the production of the return. I do not think I need say more at this period. I do hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite, however much they may like to register their vote and opinion on this Amendment, will do nothing really serious to deny to Scotland what I am sure will be of benefit to her.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: We have had what might be described as a chorus of condemnation of the procedure adopted by the Government. As Scottish Members we certainly ought to have respect
for the country which we endeavour here to represent. The local authorities have been referred to by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he has indicated that so far as county councils are concerned some representations of a limited character have been made. But we are not going to forget his ready assent to the point put by my colleague in the representation of Dundee (Mr. Johnston) that no local authority had made any request for legislation of this kind. The general body of the people in Scotland are only just beginning to get familiarised, through their representatives on the local authorities, with the meaning of this Bill. We have had an admission from the Secretary of State that we are to have a separate Bill for the adjustment of the authorities and the powers which they will wield. That is so far satisfactory. But in the Clause to which we are at the moment taking exception an outstanding fact is that there will be imposed, as an outcome of this particular adjustment, the position that those who are well able to bear the burden of rates will have relief, while the general body of people will not get relief.
There is no doubt that local authorities if they had been consulted would have been opposed to this Measure. A heavy burden of rates is resting upon the mass of the people at the present time and nothing is being done in their behalf. All that this Government does is to help those they represent, and their attitude in this respect calls for condemnation. We oppose this Clause more particularly because Scotland is simply being dragged into this scheme. We do not know what its ultimate effect will be. Hon. Members who sit behind the Government Front Bench do not I suppose understand much about it, and it would be rather interesting to hear their views. As far as Scottish Members on the other side of the Committee are concerned, they represent a deaf and dumb institution at the moment. A handful of Scottish Members on this side are putting forward reasons against this proposal of a very effective character, some of them very effective legal reasons, and the Government, even with the assistance of the Lord Advocate, have great difficulty in maintaining their position. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that I believe the Lord Advocate would have preferred a separate
Bill for Scotland. In that case we should have had the advantage of his cogent reasoning and legal skill.
I desire to emphasise the fact that there has been no consultation with local authorities. No regard whatever is being paid to their position, although the White Paper says that the proposals which are put forward are fraught with immense significance and are of very far-reaching import. To be asked to push through this Clause in a few hours simply means that the Government says: "Well, we have to recognise that there is a portion of the nation known as Scotland, but we need not trouble very much about it. A few hours during an evening will be enough for its consideration." The Government I suppose are able to give their supporters a few hours' rest from attendance at the House, they can come back in time for the Division. I hope that special cognisance of the proposal is being taken by all concerned in the interests of Scotland.
It has been said from the Liberal benches that there is not going to be the benefit from this Measure which is intended for the agricultural proprietor and tenant. Liberal condemnation has been unanimous but with that wonderful logic which is shown by the Liberal party, they, having expressed their condemnation, are going into the Lobby to support the proposals. It is certainly a triumph for revived Liberalism. The Secretary of State for Scotland has expressed the hope that his colleagues from Scotland will not go in for self-denial. We do not admit that it is a matter of self-denial. All that is involved in this Measure is a mere preamble to something which is to follow. What we have to face in Scotland is the fact that any little benefit that may arise from the industrial point of view is not worth while There will, indeed, be little if any advantage to industry from this adjustment. There will be no advantage to those whose interests the Government say they have at heart. It will not be effective in giving any impetus to industry.
I am in agreement with my colleague the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in the view that this proposal has originated with the powers that be behind the Government Front Bench. I do not mean those who are behind the
Front Bench just now. I could say some strong things against the Government but I would not go that length. I mean those who are further behind the Government—out in Whitehall. While members of local authorities denounce this proposal, officialism is not denouncing it. Officialism will not be inclined to oppose it. Undoubtedly there is a desire to secure a wider range of control for those who handle our affairs locally and nationally but our claim in that connection is something different. We say that you ought not to deal in this patchwork fashion with Scotland. There is a line at the end of the Bill:
This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
My contention is that Scotland ought to be in a position to say that and not merely to cut out this Clause, but to cut out endeavours by any Government to continue to drag Scotland along in the pitiable fashion in which she has been dragged for years. What Labour Members and Liberal Members and even Conservative Members from Scotland—when they wake up after the day's rest and quietude—want, is to come to the real issue, namely, that we should have a thorough-going Government in Edinburgh that will deal with these affairs and put Scotland in a better position than she occupies at present.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The two outstanding features in connection with this Debate will be particularly noted in Scotland to-morrow when they read it. The first is this, that in listening to the Lord Advocate I found that he had a most difficult job, that he was not carrying through his work in his usual clear and lucid way, and that he had absolutely no enthusiasm of any kind for the task in hand. The second feature of the Debate has been the fact that not a single rank and file Member of the Tory party has taken part in it. It is rather interesting that there are only two individuals on the Tory benches who have taken part in the Debate. First of all, there is the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has the only safe Tory seat in Scotland at the next general election. Even that may be in doubt, but some of us think it is the only safe Tory seat, and consequently the right
hon. Gentleman thinks he can do anything he likes with Scotland, but——

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see the connection between this and the apportionment of hereditaments.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The second point that I want to make is this, that the only other individual who has taken part in the Debate from the other side is one who represents an English constituency. I want to give four reasons why this Clause should not apply to Scotland The first is that it will not give effect to the purposes desired. I think it is the purpose of the Government to deal with the enormous rates that apply in connection with industrial areas in Scotland and England, and this Bill is to create machinery for giving effect to some of their other proposals. I do not think this Bill will give effect to the proposals of the Government in the way of relieving necessitous areas, agriculture, and mining in Scotland.
The second objection that I have to this Bill being applied to Scotland is that we have had far too much legislation for Scotland being negotiated through this House merely as an appendage to English legislation. I noted that when the Lord Advocate was dealing with this question he sought to emphasise the point that there was very little English legal terminology used in the Bill, but that is not correct. He informed the Committee that the Bill would apply as from line 25 of Clause 3, but I find that, starting from line 25 in that Clause, we have English legal terms used that theoretically we know nothing at all about in Scotland. They are just as foreign to us in Scotland as are Scottish terms to people in England. There is a phrase about a place being "situate within the close." What does a close mean? It is an English legal term, not a Scottish legal term, although I know that in some of the cities a close is an entry that leads to some bad dwelling or slum. Then the Bill deals with a curtilage, and I will give way to the Lord Advocate if he is prepared to say that a curtilage is a Scottish legal term.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am prepared to say that these words come from the Factory Act, which applies equally to Scotland.

Mr. WESTWOOD: That, is rather astute of the Lord Advocate, but we are dealing with rating and valuation, and these terms do not apply to Scottish rating and valuation. The third reason which I want to give is that this Bill is the basis on which rests the introduction of other Bills. The Lord Advocate emphasised the fact that the need of getting this Bill speedily through the House was urgent, so that the House could get on with the other Bills. Although I cannot discuss those other Bills, I am entitled to ask what they are, and what they are going to do? The fourth reason that I give against this Bill being applied to Scotland is, that instead of giving effect be those purposes which are claimed for it, it will merely be a Bill to create machinery for carrying out acknowledged Conservative and Tory policy. No one should know better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer what that policy is. On one historic occasion he said:
The policy of the Tory party was to have an open hand at the public; Exchequer, and an open door at the public-house.
Instead of giving real benefit in the way of reduction of rates to those industrial concerns which require assistance, it will merely create machinery for placing tens of thousands of pounds into the hands of those who are not entitled to get it; it will benefit the landlord class of Scotland, and in many instances industrial concerns that do not require assistance. This machinery will make the householders of Scotland bear heavier rates than they have been called upon to pay at the present time. It is the means by which the Government are actually going to destroy the whole local government of Scotland, and I hope that we shall have the support of the rank and file of the Conservative party, who have not been behind their leaders in this Debate, and who know what the view of the Scottish people is in connection with the Government proposal to destroy local democratic government in Scotland. I trust that there will be a rebellion on their part to-night, and that they will go into the Lobby with us.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: It must be very monotonous for the Secretary of State for Scotland to listen during the whole Debate to the same story from only one side of the House. I venture to say that,
even if the other side of the House had spoken, they would have had to say what has been said from this side. It is true that a few minutes ago the Secretary of State claimed that he had the backing of the County Councils' Association for taking a step of this kind. There is just a possibility that he will get a certain measure of support from the county councils, both for this scheme and for the scheme which is coming along, but he will not have the same support from the boroughs, and, after all, the higher valuations and the greater populations lie in the boroughs. He cannot claim the backing of the Convention of Royal Burghs for this scheme. We on this side are perfectly justified in saying, as hon. Members opposite would have had to say if they had spoken, that this scheme ought to have been applied to Scotland by a separate Measure, and that Scotland ought not to be dealt with in an English Measure. Enough has already been said about the alterations made in this Clause to show that we have a strong case in support of our claim for a separate Bill for Scotland.
This legislation has been introduced ostensibly to give relief not only to necessitous areas but to all areas, whether necessitous or non-necessitous. What the Government ought to have done was to relieve necessitous areas of the burdens which they ought never to have been called upon to bear. By holding out the promise of relief to non-necessitous areas as well as to necessitous areas they are hoping to get the Measure through the House. The Secretary of State may not have met with any opposition to his scheme so far, but before long he will find plenty of opposition from Scotland. He may be able, as I have said, to get the county councils on his side to a certain extent, and he may even get the backing of the larger boroughs, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen——

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No.

Mr. WATSON: —but I venture to say that he will get no support from the education authorities and the parish councils in those areas. He may even get a certain measure of support from some of the town councils in what are called the smaller boroughs because—and this is especially true of the larger
boroughs—this scheme is going to increase the powers of the local authorities in their areas. But the views of some of the county councillors who will be pretending to support this scheme will not be the views of the county electors, and among the electors of the smaller boroughs he will not get support. It is interesting to see how this business has developed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) said, first we had the wiping out of the old parish school boards and the creation of wider education areas. More recently, in 1926, we had a Rating Bill, the forerunner of the Bill we are now discussing, which cut out a large number of rating authorities. The parish council was wiped out as a rating authority, and we now have in Scotland only one rating authority in an area. As the Secretary of State said in an earlier speech, that was part of the Government scheme for creating wider areas. I am certain that before we are very much older the Secretary of State will hear a great deal more about this particular scheme from the people of Scotland.
The Government will not find a great measure of support for these proposals among the ordinary ratepayers in Scotland. They may get a certain amount of support from county councillors who see a possibility in this Bill of getting greater powers in the future, but so far as the ordinary ratepayers are concerned I am sure this Measure will be condemned wholeheartedly in Scotland. The people of Scotland are opposed to a very successful system of local government being scrapped because the Secretary for Scotland cannot lower the rates. The supporters of the Government say that we shall get lower rates in particular areas if the people of Scotland will only accept the scheme contained in this Measure, but I do not think they will accept that scheme. The Government will find that this Measure and the Measure which has been promised will not constitute a good case to place before the electors at the next election as an election cry. When the next General Election comes I am sure this question will be very much in the minds of the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) said he had never heard anybody discussing this question in Scotland, but
when the election takes place I think the hon. Member for Gorbals and the Secretary of State for Scotland will hear a great deal more from the people of Scotland on this subject than they have heard up to the present moment.

Mr. STEWART: I rise to call attention to some anomalies connected with this Bill. We have been dealing with the question of agricultural lands and heritages, but the question of rating seems to have been mentioned only incidentally. Take as an illustration the City of Glasgow and the valuation there. The gross valuation of the City of Glasgow is something like £11,000,000, and under the 1926 Rating Act that valuation was reduced by percentages granted to various industries and various proprietors by £2,800,000. Under this Bill the valuation is going to be very considerably decreased on the top of the 471 per cent. which has been granted to minerals and the 75 per cent. granted to agricultural land within the City of Glasgow. All this is to be followed by a reduction of three-fourths of the rates. We have already got a reduction in the valuation of £660,000 in the rates, and that is to be followed by a still greater decrease in the valuation. While, as I have mentioned, the total valuation of the city was £11,000,000, there has been between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 left to get no advantage at all. The 240,000 householders in Glasgow will get no relief of any kind whatever, no matter how distressed they may be, no matter how difficult it may be for them to find the rates or the rents themselves. There will be no valuation for them; there will be no valuation for offices: there will be no valuation for the shopkeepers, and they, who got nothing under the last Rating Act, are now once again to be left with nothing except the right to bear their proportion of the reduction that has been made to other people. It is true that the Government are proposing, in this new valuation, to pay the rates that would otherwise have had to be imposed by the local authorities, but, at the same time, I think it must be apparent that these people will get no benefit whatever except, as is claimed, indirectly because of the relief to industry.
On the top of that, there are anomalies in the proposals themselves. The Government
are purposing to give a relief of 45 per cent. to both owner and tenant on landlord's and occupier's rates in the case of a property that is let for productive industrial purposes. Take the case of two owners of property, one of whom lets his property for the purpose of carrying on an industrial productive concern, while the other lets his property as a warehouse for a distributive concern. The landlord who has let his property for the purposes of a productive industrial concern gets a reduction of three-fourths of his rates, while the other, who has let his adjoining property for a warehouse for a distributive concern, gets no relief whatever. I submit that a Valuation Bill to deal with rating which creates anomalies such as that cannot be dealing with rating in a fair and proper way. If the claim be made that there is no indication of any lack of support for it, as has been suggested by previous speakers, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and those who support this Measure that when its inequity, its anomalies, and its unfairness have been made apparent to the people who will ultimately have to find all the expenditure with regard to the rates, there will undoubtedly be an outcry against this valuation and the accompanying rates. In the City of Glasgow shop keeping is a depressed industry, for at the moment trade is [...]anguishing, and the general depression of trade is beginning to affect distributive industries that up to now have suffered comparatively little from the depression of the last few years. Production and distribution are two parts of one whole, and cannot be separated, and to try to separate them in a Valuation and Rating Bill will only cause that which the Government claim will not happen, namely, a feeling of disappointment in the first place, followed by a feeling of resentment. There is in the First Schedule of the Bill:
a direction that the occupier of any hereditament who claims that his hereditament is an agricultural hereditament within the meaning of this Act shall within the prescribed time send to the rating authority a claim in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars.
Then it says:
As soon as any such claims are received the rating authority shall consider them and shall begin the preparation of a preliminary draft special list in the prescribed form.
Then follow other words. I should like to know the meaning of this. Does it mean that the local authorities——

Mr. W. M. WATSON: But may I point out that the Schedule does not apply to Scotland?

Mr. STEWART: It may not apply to Scotland, but it surely will be granted that in Scotland we must make preparations on somewhat similar lines to build up the necessary forms that will be sent in by the people in regard to their claims for relief of rates. Scotland, surely, is not so situated just now, that, in cases where there is a factory which has some plant that is separated from it and is not used for industrial purposes, it is so provided in the Bill that the assessor can, immediately the Bill becomes an Act, make a statement of what is industrial, what is distributive and what is used for non-industrial purposes. Consequently I submit that it will of necessity require some forms, and if that is so, there will be bound to be, in a city like Glasgow and in all the industrial centres of Scotland, some considerable expenditure Who is going to bear that? The people who will bear it are the people who are not going to get off with their rates. You are going to give us by a system of block grants something that is going to relieve us, but while that is to take place, it is based on the present expenditure. We in Glasgow will in the near future have to face the question of a new sanatorium costing £400,000 to build.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member really cannot go into that matter now, though he might on the later Bill.

Mr. STEWART: I would not like to take advantage of the kindness that you, Mr. Hope, have shown to myself and others in giving us a little bit of rope in this matter, but I was trying to show, if I was within your ruling for to-night—

The CHAIRMAN: This £400,000 for the Glasgow sanatorium, is really a rope sufficient for the hon. Member to hang himself with.

Mr. STEWART: I have no desire to hang myself nor any other person at the moment. I am in a particularly humane frame of mind to-night. Consequently, I have no desire to do anything that will
irritate you and cause you to hang me. The point I was trying to make in regard to the £400,000 was this, if you will allow me to say it. We shall have, in the near future, increased expenditure. We had an illustration of that just now. It has been intimated by the Education Authority that we are to have another 1½d. in the £ on the rates, because the classes are to be reduced to 50 and more schools will have to be built and more teachers employed.

The CHAIRMAN: This cannot arise on the question of the classification and apportionment of heritages.

Mr. STEWART: I am accepting your ruling, Sir, and bringing my eloquence to an untimely end. I hope the sense of the Committee will be against this. I believe it is a bad Bill. I believe it will not do what it has been suggested it will do in promoting the interests of the industry of our country. On the contrary, I believe it will help to deepen the depression. Consequently, I hope the Committee will reject this proposal and let us get to something better than has yet been suggested.

Question put, "That the word 'not' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 185.

Division No. 253.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Smillie, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Snell, Harry


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Grurdy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.
Whiteley.


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Colman, N. C. D.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cope, Major Sir William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Couper, J. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Apsley, Lord
Buchan, John
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bullock, Captain M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Atholl, Duchess of
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Atkinson, C.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davidson, Major General Sir John H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cassels, J. D.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dixey, A. C.


Bethel, A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ellis, R. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Long, Major Eric
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fielden, E. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lougher, Lewis
Savery, S. S.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Ganzonl, Sir John
Lumley, L. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Skelton, A. N.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Grace, John
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Caringtan, Neville W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Smithers, Waldron


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Harland, A.
Moore Sir Newton J.
Templeton, W. P.


Hartington, Marquess of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinne, J. A.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (ptrsf'ld.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Oakley, T.
Waddington, R.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Penny, Frederick George
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perring, Sir William George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pliditch, Sir Philip
Wells, S. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Iveagh, Countess of
Remer, J. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Lamb, J. O.
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leigh, Sir John (Crapham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Captain Viscount Curzon and


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Captain Wallace.


Bill read a Second time, and committed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. SEXTON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
It is with considerable regret that I find myself opposing a Bill of this character, but in the circumstances I have no alternative. There is nothing in the Bill which appears to me to be of an objectionable character, but it is not so much
what the Bill contains as what it does not contain that I object to. It proposes to take over certain works, roads, bridges, etc., which are now in the possession of private enterprise. What we are concerned about is whether, before the negotiations took place for the taking over of these concerns, there was any consultation with the workpeople who are employed under a private employer. I find nothing in the Bill to that effect, and from the past record of the Southampton Corporation I am inclined to doubt very seriously whether anything will be contemplated to consider the position of the workmen who have been taken over. The reason why I say that, is that the record of the Southampton Corporation in this direction is a bad one.
For three years we have been endeavouring to reach the potentates of the Southampton Corporation, with the object of securing fair play for the servants of the corporation, who have been victimised since the General Strike. Over and over again we have asked these
people to follow the example of almost every corporation in the United Kngdom and to accept the suggestion of the first commoner in England, the Prime Minister, and to bury the hatchet; but they have arrogantly refused even to discuss the question. Therefore we are compelled to take advantage of the only privilege we have when people like these come pleading to the House of Commons for privileges, and ask them to meet us and to discuss what we think ought to be in the Bill for the protection of the workmen. We have done our best to approach them in all humility and all seriousness, and all we get is arrogance. They will not talk to us; they will not consider the question. At the present time some of the biggest capitalists in this country are sitting down side by side with ordinary workmen's representatives and coming to an agreement to create an industrial council. They have passed a resolution to wipe out the events of 1926 for the sake of a better understanding in the industrial world, and have expressed the hope that efforts will be made to restore pre-1926 conditions. We do not ask for the restoration of pre-1926 conditions at Southampton. The reinstatement of the men is impossible. Some of them have found other jobs and some of them are still idle.
What we asked is that the, example shown by other corporations should be followed, and that these men should be put on a list for vacancies, and that when vacancies occur each case should be reconsidered on its merits. But we have had nothing but an arrogant reply from these people. They will not even consider the matter. The potentates of Southampton Corporation may be very important persons. The mayor, I suppose, is, and so is the Town Clerk. They are simply the instruments for carrying out the wishes of other members of the Council. But the tramway men and scavengers are equally important. It may be possible to carry on the work of the town in the absence of the mayor or Town Clerk for a month or six weeks, but it would hardly be possible to go on for that length of time without the scavengers. Therefore we say that these men are equally as important. We ask that they should get fair play. They may have been wrong in 1926; as to that
I now say nothing. All that has been wiped out. Yet these men are being persistently penalised by people who profess to speak in the name of the people of Southampton. All we ask is that these people shall at least fall into line with all other corporations and that these men shall not be persistently victimised.

Mr. SHORT: I beg to second the Amendment.
Owing to the abnormal procedure of the House we are being asked at this late hour to consider vital and important matters affecting the welfare of Southampton and the commercial prosperity of the town. Had we been met with courtesy instead of arrogance, had we been received by the promoters of the Bill, had our complaints been listened to, had they tried to disperse our fears and redress our grievances if they are real, we should not be keeping the House at this late hour. But the promoters have treated us with contempt and have disregarded our pleas. That should not be the attitude of any popularly elected body like the Corporation of Southampton. We do not ask that they should agree with us, we do not ask that they should grant what we ask, but we are entitled to ask that they should listen to our objections with patience and bring reason and judgment to bear upon the questions which we think worth consideration. Under this Bill the Corporation seeks to obtain powers to acquire what is known as the Northam Company, the proprietors of the Northam Bridge, whose legal rights are incorporated in an Act which was passed in the year 1795.
We are not told anything about the amount of money involved in the transaction, although I admit that provision is made for the purchase to be made by arbitration. The same thing does not apply to the purchase of the Itchen Floating Bridge Company. There is ample provision for safeguarding the rights of directors and shareholders. Line after line, sentence after sentence, Clause after Clause, tell us how the winding-up of the company is to be carried out, and we are told that the Council may decide at some date to discontinue the tolls. We are not told anything about the workmen, about the employés. There nothing about safeguarding their interests, nothing about taking them over, or compensating those who are dismissed.
These are questions; upon which the promoters should meet us. They are reasonable questions. Are we not entitled to ask the promoters what they propose to do. If they had come forward and said, there are no workmen involved, no employés who are likely to suffer, we are going to take them over, we should not have been opposing the Bill.
These are questions of vital importance and if we give powers to the corporation to take over these undertakings, we are entitled, in the exercise of our rights as Members of Parliament—[Interruption]. I shall wait until I get attention from hon. Members. I am stating a case and I intend to be heard. If they are acquiring these undertakings and if workpeople are to be affected, then as they have provided for shareholders and directors, they ought to provide for the employés. It is an outrageous proceeding to refuse even to meet us and discuss the matter. I have been in the House 10 years and have had considerable experience of Private Bills but never once have I known of a refusal even to discuss a question of this kind. Only recently my hon. Friends and I withdrew opposition to Bills as a result of negotiations.
There is another aspect of the matter. The corporation refused to meet the trade union representatives—the accredited representatives of the workpeople. No wonder they refused to meet even Members of Parliament. It is in line with their general attitude. We do not object to progressive measures. We do not object to undertakings being taken over by a corporation when we believe it is for the advantage of the community. But we ask that a corporation of this standing, an elected body, should be prepared to meet their employés or their employés' representatives and lift the bar of victimisation which they have erected against men who have served them faithfully in the past. But they are inclined to be vindictive and resentful of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) has mentioned that there is a movement to-day in industry to secure terms of peace, and one of the main conditions involved is the removal of victimisation. If private employers of standing in our industrial life can go so far, we are entitled to ask a publicly-elected
body like the Southampton Corporation to act in a similar manner.
Our plea, I am afraid, has fallen upon deaf ears. The corporation seek powers, to which we have no objection, for the laying clown of a tramway and its maintenance at a cost of £51,200. Workmen will have to be employed in that work and we wish for an assurance that these men will be treated properly. We should like to know that their representatives will be received by the corporation. When the tramway has been completed, tram drivers and conductors will be employed. We should like to know what attitude the corporation will take towards those men who have been victimised because they stood by the miners. We have not asked the corporation to reinstate them. All that we have asked is that the small number remaining, a very small number indeed, because others, happily, have found work in other industries, should be put on a waiting list and so be able, possibly, to find employment again under the corporation. We are not even heard; we are not received. We are told it is impracticable to arrange a meeting, but I suppose their representatives are here to-night. I have no doubt that they have found their way into the House of Commons or near by, and if they could do that, they might have seen my hon. Friends and myself to discuss these matters. These are things to which we attach vital importance and we are not going to be treated like this without raising our voices in protest. We shall exercise to the full our powers as private Members unless we are going to be treated with that courtesy which becomes the promoters of the Bill and Members of Parliament.

Lord APSLEY: Before dealing with the speeches of the hon. Members for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) and Wednesbury (Mr. Short), which I do not think bear any very direct relation to the contents of the Bill, I think I should do well to explain, briefly and concisely, what is intended in the Bill. As hon. Members, no doubt, know, Southampton lies between the rivers Itchen and Test. As all hon. Members representing boroughs know, the very life and prosperity of a borough depend very largely on its communications, internal and external.

Mr. SEXTON: And its workpeople too.

Lord APSLEY: As far as the external communications of Southampton are concerned, on the South there is the sea; on the North-west, the West, and the North the communications are good, but to the East, where they cross the river Itchen, they are impeded to a considerable extent by tolls over one of the bridges and the ferry, over which a toll has to be paid. This bears with considerable hardship on the town in two ways. First of all, the inhabitants of that part of Southampton which lies on the East side of the town, notably Woolston, Sholing, and other places where most of the shipyards and manufactories are situated, have to pay every time that they cross to the town, a penny one way and a halfpenny the other, and for a car a shilling one way and sixpence the other. This is a direct charge, first of all, on the workpeople and their families, and secondly on the companies, because a great many of the companies pay the fares of the men who happen to live in the other parts of the town. Further, the northern bridge bears with considerable hardship on the town because it interrupts direct communication with the East, including Portsmouth. By this Bill the Corporation are seeking power to buy up the undertaking known as the Itchen and Northam Floating Bridge Company, and ultimately, or as soon as they can possibly do so, they intend to free the Northam bridge from the toll. That bridge is to be bought compulsorily, and having done that, they will then by agreement buy up the Itchen bridge and run it as a Corporation undertaking, reducing the fares, if they can, at a later date.
Hon. Members might ask why this was not all done before, as it has been done in many parts of the country. Southampton Corporation having been a very progressive body all through history, and having been very careful in
considering the rates and the economic running of their borough, had no wish to buy up these undertakings until the prosperity of the town, which is increasing every year, would warrant it, and until the decreasing prosperity of the toll bridges would enable them to get them at a cheaper price. Then suddenly came the motor car, which revolutionised the whole situation, and instead of being an almost moribund company, like most of the toll companies were at the end of
last century, this company increased in prosperity. If you are going to purchase an undertaking you must bear in mind the profits that are made, because that naturally affects the price. Consequently they had put forward the proposition, which is before the House, to buy up half the undertaking straight away, and, as soon as they can do so, to free the tolls and buy up the other half of the undertaking by agreement. That is a proposition which, I think, will meet with the unanimous assent of all parties.

Mr. SEXTON: We do agree with the principle. What we want to be assured of is the fate of the workmen.

Lord APSLEY: I agree, and I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman does agree with the principle. When this came before the Town Council, all the members of the Labour party voted for it, and the resolution was passed unanimously. It is practically, therefore, an agreed Bill. There is no opposition except on the point which the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment put forward. Those Members who watch the Debates on private Bills are accustomed to seeing a small knot of hon. Members on the Benches opposite, who are the more Conservative-minded members of their party, and who still cling to the venerable and rather threadbare doctrine of Socialism, gather together to oppose private Bills on the ground that they are favourable to private enterprise at the expense of municipal or State control. This Bill, however, has not been brought forward by a private undertaking, but has been put forward by a municipal Corporation to take over the affairs of a private undertaking. Yet we had a small group of Members opposite opposing it.

Mr. SEXTON: Not the principle.

Lord APSLEY: But the hon. Members support the Amendment to reject the Bill. I confess that I had misgivings about the frequently expressed keenness to support municipal trading which we hear from the Benches opposite. I begin to wonder what can be at the bottom of this. Here we have a municipality wishing to exercise its legitimate functions, a municipality democratically elected, and hon. Members opposite are putting forward an Amendment to block their wishes, and I
begin to ask myself why. Can it be that they wish to control the municipalities themselves by political or even possibly by direct action? I ask myself this question, and I think the municipal and cooperative trading organisations will ask this question too. Is it possible that this fledgling which they are tending so carefully may turn out to be a cuckoo?
I will now deal briefly with the questions of hon. Members. The tramway men who were not reinstated after the strike had been allowed a considerable interval of time in which to report back for work, and the reason why they were not reinstated was either that they did not come forward or that they had disobeyed the rules of the company. I have here a report from the manager:
It is a regulation that men reporting back for duty after being absent for any reason must do so by noon of any day, to resume duty on the following day.
They were given the opportunity but they did not turn up. There are 68 of them who did not return at all. As the hon. Member for Wednesbury said, most of thorn got other jobs and they do not particularly want to go back; but the hon. Member for Wednesbury made it a particular point that they should be added to the waiting list. They are on the waiting list. Councillor Smith has got up a waiting list and 48 of them have put their names down, and their chances of being employed now hinge very largely on the last Clause in this Bill, which is a Clause to extend the tramways. The Corporation have no particular desire to bring this Clause forward. There is a strong body of opinion in Southampton, as in other boroughs, that tramways may be becoming obsolescent. There is an idea that six-wheel double deck buses may perform the work of the tramcars. They have a greater flexibility and a greater speed, and they impede traffic less, and there is an opinion in the towns that quite possibly they may replace tramways in the future. On the other hand, the Council, taking a broad-minded view, feel that other developments may occur—perhaps in conjunction with the electricity supply schemes which the Minister of Transport piloted through Parliament last year—which may make tramways more economical than motor buses. Therefore, keeping in view that there are still a number of men to be re-engaged,
they have put in this Clause asking for powers to extend the tramways to a certain extent. The reason they have not consulted the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and his union and the hon. Member for Wednesbury is not to be found in any arrogance or the adoption of a stiff-necked attitude on their part; the simple explanation is that none of the men in the tramways department at the present time or working on the Itchen floating bridge belong to that union. With apologies for having kept the House such an unconscionable time I now venture to ask hon. Members to pass this Measure.

Mr. SEXTON: I am obliged to the Noble Lord for the explanation, and may I say that if it had been conveyed to us through the usual channels——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only speak again by leave of the House. He has already exhausted his right.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Municipal corporations all over the country wiped out, many months ago, the unfortunate incidents of 1926, and we are now only asking the Southampton Corporation to follow that example, whether the men are in the union at the present time or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] The Noble Lord has put some sort of case for the corporation. He has remarked that sometimes hon. Members on this side stay late to oppose private Bills. Nobody has yet tried to oppose this Bill, but only to ask that Southampton should now make the same gesture to settle the incidents which were the outcome of 1926. They have now fallen into line, and we are hoping to see a better spirit. All we ask is: "Why cannot we bury the past?" Surely, some of the criticisms which have been made are not very appropriate at a time when we road such glowing accounts of the conference held yesterday which may be the harbinger of peace, and may lead to a better understanding between employers and employed in all the industries of this country. If the Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsloy) had said that the Corporation were prepared to meet any representatives of trade unions whom they were asked to meet all this discussion would not have arisen.

Lord APSLEY: The Corporation would be willing to meet the representatives of any trade union of which the workmen in their employ are members, but the men concerned are not members of any union at the moment.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I understand that these men have now got their names on the waiting list, and that if any of them should be selected the representatives of the unions of which they are members would be allowed to speak for them?

Lord APSLEY: Certainly.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve o'clock.